|
|
|
|
|
by pevey
1037 days ago
|
|
I get that there are pros and cons of different licenses, and reasonable people my disagree, but this is the first time that occurred to them? This far down the road? No one forced them to be open source. They did it for certain benefits. They would have gone nowhere in the early days with this new license, most likely. I can only see these moves as bait and switch. Encourage everyone to use it, allow and maybe even encourage companies to build offerings on top of it to help with traction/mindshare... and then oh btw we changed our mind. It may be their right, but I'm glad people are talking about the implications. |
|
The Amazons of the world don't have to pay a fair price for the software that they use and also get to sell at exceptionally high prices.
TBH, that last part is still somewhat of a mystery to me. How did the market evolve to such a place that large infrastructure providers can command huge gross margins? Shouldn't that be a highly commoditized part of the supply chain?