[tedivm]

> AWS stomped on open source projects - despite the clear desire of projects like Elasticsearch, Redis, and MongoDB not to be cloned and monetized, AWS pushed ahead with OpenSearch, Valkey, and DocumentDB anyway, capturing the hosted-service money after those communities and companies had built the markets; the result was a wave of defensive licenses like SSPL, Elastic License, RSAL, and other source-available models designed less to stop ordinary users than to stop AWS from stripping open-source infrastructure for parts, owning the customer relationship.

This is completely backwards, at least with OpenSearch and Valkey. AWS didn't create the forks until after the upstream projects changed their license, so it's really weird to say that the forks "resulted" in the license changes when those forks where a response to the license changes. With Valkey in particular it was members of the former redis core development team that created Valkey.

[hankerapp]

A lot of these projects work on a business model where they open-source their core product, and provide advanced services, installation, maintenance or fully-managed services around their product. AWS was bypassing them by providing fully-managed services. On this, I am on the side of the people behind the projects. Basically AWS was eating their lunch. They had no choice but to change the licenses.

[rpdillon]

They have a problem with their business model, then. License changes to a formerly open source project are costly. The community reacts very strongly when license terms change after they've come to depend on a product, and they should.

Why do we apply this standard to MongoDB but not to Apache, Linux, Postgres, or MariaDB? One purpose of an open source license is to allow many providers to provide the service. As I've talked about here previously, Elasticsearch wasn't able to provide the service I needed, so I had to move to AWS.

It's weird to me that the Hacker News community doesn't think that sort of competition is good. The narrative seems to be that all these businesses are somehow victims of AWS, when it seems the truth is much more straightforward: they provided open source software and people used it. The fact that their business had no working plan to actually monetize that foundation should not be taken out on the community.

[maest]

> It's weird to me that the Hacker News community doesn't think that sort of competition is good.

Negative externalities. The company makes money using a free resource and disincentivises future development.

I'm sure you can see why killing the most popular business model for open source companies is bad for the ecosystem, right?

[alexey-salmin]

I can't? I mean, if Amazon does commercial version of Elastic better than Elastic themselves then so be it. I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not.

I do see issues with monopolies pushing inferior products onto users. But that would be a completely different issue, nothing to do with open source.

[JambalayaJimbo]

I mean it’s a free country either way then. Elastic can change the licensing and Amazon is then free to compete with a fork of the software pre-licensing change.

Amazon doesn’t really have a leg to stand on in objection here. Building a platform to re-sell an open source project may end up fracturing that open source community’s user base, that’s a consequence of their own actions.

[dns_snek]

> I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not.

According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem. Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?

[alexey-salmin]

> According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem.

I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license.

> Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?

They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.

[Orygin]

Why isn't this a problem for other databases then? I'm sure most cloud sell some MariaDB services. Why would they be able to profit from it?

It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.

[kortilla]

Don’t get into open source if you don’t like your users using the software however they see fit.

[gcr]

Don’t you see how bankrupting the Elastic devs pushes an inferior product onto users?

[jasonlotito]

> The company makes money using a free resource and disincentivises future development.

Open source companies should pick open source licenses that support that business model. They don't. It's short term thinking.

[ipaddr]

Competition would mean Amazon creating their own software. Taking software others made and using your monopoly eco-system and scale to drive the original creator out of the game kills the product.

Many support breaking up Amazon so others could compete not killing small entities and growing Amazon.

[skinfaxi]

> Taking software others made and using your monopoly eco-system and scale to drive the original creator out of the game kills the product

They took software that others gave away for free without restriction and did what they wanted with it. It took time but the community figured out this exploit path and patched it in subsequent license versions.

[wvh]

One could argue it was not given away for free, but with a silent expectation of reciprocity. Using open-source is a gentleman's agreement to be respectful towards the project, a good citizen, not to abuse and potentially contribute.

But you're right communities are now having to concoct a wild-growing collection of semi open-source licenses to protect themselves from abuse by a few big players.

[mschild]

Form a legal standpoint, you're correct.

From a moral/ethic one, its still shit.

You're legally allowed to do a whole lot of things. You can still be called an asshole for doing them.

[jeremyjh]

They knew what they were doing. They released OSS to build traction and a community. In some cases, the community contributed quite a lot to the quality of the software - even if not a lot of code. It never would have gained any traction or interest from enterprise buyers without that. Then that valuable software they had already given away was used to build a business that couldn’t create enough value on top of it.

The only people with any justification for hurt feelings are the community contributors.

[tedivm]

AWS literally paid for developers for the redis project, including the salary of core members. It's not like they didn't contribute back to the community.

[jeremyjh]

They pay for a lot more open source work than that as well, but they also don't get to make any special claims for doing that. None of it is charity - it is simply in the collective interest of a lot of tech companies to commoditize and share the costs of infrastructure software. Even shaming freeloaders is uncalled for and against the ethos of OSS, which is sort of implied in making your statement.

[rpdillon]

It's not just Amazon, it's also smaller providers like Dreamhost, which I've been using for 20 years. I feel like people are in favor of killing the hosting ecosystem so that we can support businesses that didn't have a working plan to monetize their open source offering.

[ThrowawayR2]

That's a risk they knowingly chose to accept when they opted for FOSS licensing. It's not as if people hadn't asked "Well, what if another party tries to fork our open source code for profit?" all the way back when FOSS was starting to gain traction in the 1990s.

[pessimizer]

OSS licensing.

Free Software was designed to avoid this, and has become stricter as the technology changed. Open Source was deliberately designed to thwart this. The entire intention of it was to allow businesses to resell work that was done for free. When you fork Free Software, your fork is also Free Software.

[pabs3]

Free Software licenses don't restrict profit making, even the AGPL wouldn't stop Amazon from using the same strategy to beat those OSS companies in the market.

[MaxBarraclough]

> OSS licensing. Free Software was designed to avoid this

This is pretty much a distinction without a difference. There are licences that qualify as one but not the other (per the FSF and OSI's determinations), but none are in widespread use.

> When you fork Free Software, your fork is also Free Software.

That would be copyleft. [0] Not all Free Software licences are copyleft licences.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

[kikimora]

Original creator business model relies on extracting free labor from community. It backfired and they changed the license. They abuse contributors by betraying their trust and changing the license after AWS abused their business model. No good guys here.

[andrepd]

There's a lesson there then, isn't there? Use GPL

[jlokier]

The GPL has no effect on this issue. For service providers like AWS, who provide the service not the software, the GPL doesn't require them to do anything differently than with more permissive licenses.

[somenameforme]

++

I think the GPL has become somewhat obsolete because of this causing it create to completely nonsensical scenarios. For instance I can't comply with the GPL and add vanilla Stockfish (the currently strongest chess engine, licensed under GPL) to a chess app released on the Apple store, yet somebody can slightly modify the engine, keep all those modifications proprietary, and sell access to the engine on the same App store, without source access, so long as the computer is done through a middle-man server instead of being done locally.

The GPL no longer suffices to maintain the spirit of intent of the GPL. Like a peer comment mentioned it seems (??) that AGPL is their update to resolve this.

[andrepd]

AGPL, it is implied.

[dmantis]

AGPLv3 does.

[temp8830]

*AGPL

[pocksuppet]

Use AGPL or SSPL or make a better worded version of SSPL

[lmm]

Selling support/services as the maintainer of an open-source service was never a hard-nosed business proposition in the first place. It's like Amazon undercutting your fire station's bake sale.

[jychang]

Yeah, I'm genuinely concerned that members of society can't seem to understand this.

More and more people are just focused on making a quick buck.

I'm getting a feeling that these people would gladly rip off a lemonade stand, and then defend themselves by saying the lemonade stand deserves it.

[pentacent_hq]

This is such a good analogy, thank you!

[sandeepkd]

There are passive open source projects done by people out of love in their spare time over the years and then there are active open source projects done by people with the idea of executing in the open space and building a community around it. The later has business incentives tied around it and I guess the challenge is that there isnt a clear structure which leads to this situation.

[swasheck]

agreed. i’m no aws apologist but if you’re going to try to monetize open source and then complain when someone else does it more efficiently/effectively, it really feels disingenuous. “we were going to do that, but they got there first. it’s not fair.”

i’m only familiar with the postgres side, but it seems like a more nuanced view of this debate would be to discuss aws monetizing open source relative to their upstream, community-beneficial contributions.

[dijit]

Honestly, this is so divorced from reality that I'm curious if you've ever actually spoken to a CFO before.

[swasheck]

please educate instead of insult. happy to hear your response. that is why we’re here, after all.

[dijit]

Sure. CFOs optimise for fewer vendor relationships; fewer invoices, fewer things to talk about during compliance, less reconciliation overhead. Consolidated spend also improves their negotiating position. So when AWS offers good-enough Elasticsearch bundled into an existing relationship, it wins regardless of whether the original is better supported or better value.

"More efficiently" means procurement efficiency, not operational efficiency. They're not the same thing.

[hunterpayne]

"They have a problem with their business model, then"

Ok, then don't be surprised when the most popular license becomes the FairSource license. Under this license, you have no rights, no ability to fork and no ability to modify, no ability to legally change the software in any way, but hey...you can see the source right. I feel like you don't understand the tragedy of the commons somehow.

[bornfreddy]

That's a huge misrepresentation of fair source licenses. They prevent competing with the original vendor, but still try to retain Right to Repair as much as possible, for example:

> The Fair Core License, or FCL, is a mostly-permissive non-compete Fair Source license that eventually transitions to Open Source after 2 years.

[hunterpayne]

The license is what I say it is when I release. You get no rights. You won't be able to fork. You won't be able to legally compile it. You get no rights. Because you have abused the trust of the devs. This is the new normal. Congrats on destroying one of the biggest sources of value in society. And nobody else using it will care because they aren't sociopaths that think they have the right to steal from others.

[rpdillon]

> aren't sociopaths that think they have the right to steal from others.

I cannot possibly fathom how you're getting from "I deployed some GPLv3 software as part of my hosting service" to "sociopath that think(s) they have a right to steal from others."

Copyright, by default, reserves all rights for the author. The authors then chose to license under a license that explicitly gives all those rights back, and when users leverage those rights, it is being cast as theft. That's...not coherent.

These companies want it both ways: open-source to gain traction, closed-source to monetize. In other areas, we call this "enshittification", and that's what it is here, too.

[cyanydeez]

Walmart pulling up top a small town, opening a single business, paying everyone minimum wage is not 'competition is good'.

Just try a little bit of understanding.

[rpdillon]

This feels close to "felony contempt of business model".

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...

We are supportive of 3rd party ink cartridges, and there's little concern for the business model of the printer manufacturers. We instead care about the rights of the folks using the printers.

With Postgres, no one bats an eye that there are thousands of hosting companies providing Postgres as an offering, and they give nothing back to the project. Same with Apache, Nextcloud, Linux, Nginx, Sqlite, and thousands of other pieces of open-source software. Are folks against hosting companies like https://yunohost.org/?

It's only when (1) the software is open-source, and (2) the entity behind it doesn't know how to sustain itself with open-source, that we suddenly change positions and view the project as a victim. This doesn't happen with printers, it doesn't happen with other open source software. I'm not even against a change in the license, but claiming that AWS is evil for doing this doesn't track.

[gobdovan]

A lot of those projects are not companies selling software. They're effectively public infrastructure projects, often governed by non-profit foundations or community institutions.

Also, many of them predate hyperscalers and developed governance/economic structures that make them harder for AWS to capture or destabilize, whereas AWS free-riding a vendor-controlled project can destroy the economic engine sustaining the project itself.

Quite ironically, the only example from your list that doesn't predate hyperscalers (Nextcloud) is fundamentally a self-hosting/federation product. It exists largely as an alternative to hyperscaler-native platforms, not as a cloud primitive AWS can easily commoditise into its own stack.

So, treating PostgreSQL, Linux, Elasticsearch and Nextcloud as interchangeable "open source projects" ignores the completely different institutional and economic realities behind the projects.

[rpdillon]

Indeed! I just don't think it's on Amazon to fix those institutional and economic realities when they decide to host a project that people find useful.

[Dylan16807]

If printers were free, and ink was free or open, and the printer company said "don't operate a printer leasing business, that's the only thing you can't do", I would side with the printer company.

[rpdillon]

This ignores the part where the printer company said anyone could use the printers for whatever they wanted.

[tonyedgecombe]

Maybe it is for the consumer. When Aldi opened in my nearest town my food bill dropped by 20%.

[gobdovan]

That's the desired outcome of competition but the effects can go all over the place and the second-order effects in fragile towns can matter more than the price drop. As an extreme example, some people may lose their jobs, local spending may fall, some small shops may close and Aldi may pull out too, so everybody loses (here's [0] as an approximate example).

Usually a community can tolerate changes only when it's not already near the bottom. When you're near the bottom, almost any destabilisation can kill your little system.

[0] https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/aldi-closes-west-pullman-c...

[cyanydeez]

Aldi is a grwat example of a socially discipled capitalism.

[throwaway2037]

Can you explain you intent behind "socially" in your comment? I don't understand it.

[surajrmal]

Arguably the town is at fault for choosing to permit Walmart to open in their town in that analogy. If you want to control the negative externalities of capitalism you can't just expect to not provide regulations and hope things will work out.

Even if it weren't AWS, someone else with enough determination could use the same open source code to create a compelling alternative taking away business from the original authors. Trying to use social norms to make people not do that is not effective. You need mechanisms that can be enforced via legal procedures to be effective.

[cyanydeez]

the grift economy is demonstrating that throwing money is all you need to do to get a permit.

[bluegatty]

"It's weird to me that the Hacker News community doesn't think that sort of competition is good."

It's not 'competition'.

It's carnivorous, predatory.

Consider shifting gears and seeing all of this through the lens of 'power'.

There is no such thing as open/free markets when there is massive power asymmetry.

Anything that a weaker entity produces, will be 'taken' by a more powerful entity via all sorts of mechanisms.

The 'point' of IP/Open Sources liscencing can be whatever anyone wants it to be ...

but consider this: if the 'game' is on a tilted field, then almost all of the economic value goes into the hands of those with the power to reap the surplus - not the creator.

The 'owner' is who has power.

The Kings didn't rule by arbitrary decree - their money came from owning all the land. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how hard you innovate, how much surplus you create - if the landlord says 'I want all of that' and you have no choice.

Your Rent = All The Value of the Stuff You Create with a bit leftover for you to survive.

That is entirely done through legal ownership - not through some kind of forceful cocercion.

Control of distribution, access to financing, entrenched supplier / buyer relationships, barriers to entry, regulatory capture, economies of scale - all of that makes some systems unassailable without some degree of power.

Purely through the lens of power - Open Source is like 'commoditizing' a tiny little part of the system, where the surpluses will get pulled in by the most powerful entity.

In this case: Amazon.

Anyone writing software and 'making it free' - that Amazon can use - is working for Amazon for free.

Again: if you want to see it way.

If you just like 'making stuff' that's perfectly fine as well.

But - the moment you see this as a 'means to income' - then - it's a 'power dynamic'.

This is why better/smarter IP laws should help smaller players.

The whole point of these things is to try to enable actual competition - which is not 'feed David to Goliath' - its supposed to give David a chance.

The 'changing of license terms' by some small vendors is the result of Amazon suffocating them - it's the power system finding it's 'equilibrium' - where the 'creators' are snuffed out - or 'better yet for Amazon' keep working for free.

[ivell]

And for society as a whole, we are getting to a state where corporations have incredibly large amount of money and gradually, hard power too. OSS is kind of small rebellion that we need to sustain so that we don't that tiny bit of freedom we have.

P.S. I think East India Company's history should be a mandatory lesson for everyone on the ability of a single company to take over a subcontinent. At its peak they had their own army, ruthless efficiency due to a largely meritocratic structure, and was successful in taking over multiple kingdoms.

[mpyne]

> They had no choice but to change the licenses.

Then why did they advertise themselves as open-source efforts when they weren't? They should have been the best possible providers of managed service offerings given they wrote the software they'd be managing, no?

Why are monopolies OK here but not elsewhere? Choosing a hard-to-win business model is not supposed to be a choice that guarantees you business income.

[htx80nerd]

Companies are making a trillion dollars on Open Source free code then maybe donate 50k to that project. People are spending huge amounts of time , stress, their lives, to help these projects. Companies have proved themselves to be very self centered. CEOs getting 2x yatchs and 5x houses while Open Source guys are trying to figure out which grocery store has the cheapest food items.

[mpyne]

Companies should contribute as they can, if only for self-centered business reasons relating to keeping the upstream viable. But there are obligations to the users of software as well, it's not AWS's fault if making their user's lives easier make it harder for companies try to sell hosting of open-source servers.

I didn't see the PHP or SquirrelMail contributors having a conniption when Dreamhost started offering free webmail with their hosting offering.

[streetfighter64]

I've got a field of strawberries, and I put up a sign, "free to pick by yourself, or pay 10$ for a pre-picked basket". Then Amazon comes in, starts sending their workers to pick my strawberries, and sell them for 5$ a basket. Was I then lying when I advertised the strawberries as free in my original sign, if I now want to change it to stop them from doing that?

[mpyne]

I'm sorry, but "or pay $10 for a pre-picked basket" is not an open source product, because "free to pick" was the other option for an open source product.

"free to pick by yourself" is the equivalent a proprietary freeware product, not an open-source product, because it excludes the idea of others picking strawberries. If that's your thing then by all means license it as such. But call it proprietary rather than open source.

Some companies make a living off a model of "free to pick as needed for as long as you agree to help tend the future strawberries held in common, even if your competitors pick strawberries. Or you can pay $10 for your own exclusive plot of land and no requirement to let others past your fence".

But that's not the model Redis was trying to use.

[streetfighter64]

You're really torturing the analogy in a way that isn't comprehensible at all.

But if your point is that "open source" is a bad license that most people who use it come to regret later, then yes, I agree, and they probably shouldn't have advertised as open source from the beginning.

[skywhopper]

Just because they picked a bad business model doesn’t mean they deserve to avoid competition. Don’t give away your source code if you don’t want someone else to provide hosting.

[harrall]

You’re not wrong but if people didn’t, all our companies would be using Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server and paying Larry Ellison instead today.

[mpyne]

PostgreSQL is doing fine even with AWS having a multitude of hosted offerings.

Maybe the business model / community-governance model does matter after all...

[petepete]

PostgreSQL doesn't have a pro/officially supported version though.

[mpyne]

Sure they do.

AWS RDS, Azure Database for PostgreSQL, etc. are all "pro" / "officially supported" deployments of PostgreSQL.

On top of that the PostgreSQL official website even lists a whole table full of vendors from whom you can get commercial support at https://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support/nort...

Bringing faux open source into the world isn't a justification for adopting an infeasible business model and then complaining that your business doesn't compete very well.

[MSFT_Edging]

Don't take advantage of open source projects if you don't want to be targeted in their licensing.

[colechristensen]

A lot of these projects started as community driven and funded open source efforts that eventually the creators decided to make a professional services company as a sponsor -> that company takes over nearly all of the development -> they relicense when they realize the funding they raised isn't going to be paid back.

They're all just rug pulls when the creators want to get rich off of their open product and realize they can't after raising tens of millions.

I'd have a lot more sympathy if the story wasn't "closing an open project so we can pay investors"

[0123456789ABCDE]

isn't it that a lot of these projects start as open-source, then try to bank on that free labor, by switching licenses?

[ceejayoz]

> it's really weird to say that the forks "resulted" in the license changes when those forks where a response to the license changes

But those license changes were a response to how AWS was monetizing their work in ways unsustainable for the upstream projects.

[embedding-shape]

> But those license changes were a response to how AWS was monetizing their work in ways unsustainable for the upstream projects

Or seen from the other side, these projects chose initial licenses that didn't fit with their wants for how others should use their project, in this mind.

If you use a license that gives people the freedom to host your project as a service and make money that way, without paying you, and your goal was to make money that specific way, it kind of feels like you chose the wrong license here.

What was unsustainable (considering this perspective) was less that outside actors did what they were allowed to do, and more that they chose a license that was incompatible with their actual goals.

[ceejayoz]

The situation changed. A license that's the right choice at one point may not be the right license a decade later.

[ncruces]

That's fair, but forking the FOSS version is also an adequate response.

[ceejayoz]

Yes. But so would financially contributing to the folks who did the work.

[tedivm]

AWS literally did that. They paid for full time developers to contribute back to the redis code base, including core redis developers. If you actually look at the redis code base the majority of it was written by people who never worked for redis.

[ncruces]

Sure.

Since they're a for profit entity, they'll do whatever they think offers the best cost/benefit.

[chii]

If those folks wanted money for their work, they should be charging a price for it.

[jabwd]

I hate Amazon and monopolies, but I hate companies that think opensourcing their code as a marketing stunt gives them more rights or whatever. If you don't want to opensource, then don't?!

[sincerely]

I can’t agree more, this “our software is open source but we have unwritten rules about how you can use it or we’ll attempt to shame you” attitude is absurd

[embedding-shape]

Agree, as long as existing contributors agree the license should be changed, projects should feel free to do so, no harm, no foul.

[tonyedgecombe]

I’m not sure any open source license is going to help when you can ask Claude to clone an application in the language of your choice.

[pessimizer]

If Claude looks at the code when it does it, then you can still sue them. I don't think there's a "Claude Clean Room" product that trains on everything except the code you might be accused of copying.

I can't just translate Harry Potter to Spanish and sell it.

[ceejayoz]

And yet: https://github.com/ultraworkers/claw-code

[jgalt212]

Yes, this was my impression as well.

[2ndorderthought]

Sometimes I wonder how much it would hurt Amazon to pay the creators and maintainers of OSS software they sell 1 cent per billing period of use(1 hr?). I also wonder how much money that would offer an oss team. To contribute risk free to improving the product

[richwater]

I think you would be surprised how many commits in OSS comes from paid workers of the various cloud companies and tech companies out there.

[ninjagoo]

> I think you would be surprised how many commits in OSS comes from paid workers of the various cloud companies and tech companies out there.

And I think the value that various cloud companies and tech companies derive from open source by far exceeds their contributions to it. When you add in the economic contribution, those OSS value-adds are an order of magnitude higher.

According this Harvard paper [1], the cost to create wide used open-source software once is about $4 Billion. The replacement value to firms that use OSS, if they had to build or buy the equivalents themselves, is about $8.8 Trillion. The Software spending effect (how much firms would need to spend on software without OSS) is 3.5x.

According to this EU study [2], EU companies invested about €1B in OSS in 2018, but in return the impact on the European economy was estimated €65B–€95B.

[1] https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=65230 [2] https://opencommons.org/images/c/c1/The_impact_of_open_sourc...

[troad]

> And I think the value that various cloud companies and tech companies derive from open source by far exceeds their contributions to it.

Isn't that how literally all economic exchange works? Why do you think your boss pays your salary?

If the argument is that Amazon should invest 110% of their OSS-derived profits back into OSS, then OSS ceases to have any value to them. They would simply write their own closed-source software, which would be trivial for a company of Amazon's size, and we'd all be poorer off for not having OSS. Getting one percent of someone's profit is better than getting zero percent.

[firesteelrain]

Understand the argument. No one is forcing anyone to make OSS. They do it because they want to. It’s like they are own worst enemy

[hunterpayne]

"It’s like they are own worst enemy"

No, you are your own worst enemy. Because of your attitude, OSS is going to go away as will all those economic benefits you are enjoying. But keep up with the its OK to pee in the pool type ethics of yours. Let's see where that gets you in the long run.

[firesteelrain]

Ok -

So you are annoyed I am using something for free and per the license that the authors set themselves and wanted no compensation. Got it.

[hedora]

First amazon was abusive. They abused their monopoly position to gain market dominance over upstream and didn’t contribute back monetarily or with code.

Next, upstream responded with a license change, then amazon escalated with the fork.

[paulddraper]

You’re reading “cloned and monetized” as “forked.”

But in context, it means “cloned/downloaded and offered as a hosted service.”

The fork came later, after the defensive license, which was in response to the clone+monetized hosting, eg ElasticSearch.

[ccorcos]

While I'm a big fan of open source, I don't understand what the alternative is for this dilemma...

Is it supposed to be illegal for me to create my own homegrown database with the same API as MongoDB? If not, then when people start using it, can I offer a hosting solution?

I feel like that should be allowed. It's just not always a happy outcome for everyone...

[tcp_handshaker]

I lost my sympathy for many of the open source projects philosophy, the first time I sent a patch to Redis, one of the committers took as its own, never replying to my messages, and patched it in its name. They deserve Valkey.

And I still remember JBoss and ahole Marc Fleury ...

[stavros]

Of course AWS didn't create the forks until the projects changed their license to disallow AWS from making money from their code! That's the whole point here.

[jasonlotito]

When they changed their license, they were no longer open source. They could have chosen open source licenses such as the AGPL, but they did not. They were a non-open source company at that point, and AWS was putting out a product build on open source. Simple as that.

Redis was not an open source company when AWS moved to Valkey.

Companies are free to license under the AGPL if they want. Or other open source licenses.

Sorry, but non-open source companies aren't getting sympathy from me because they are hating on open source projects.

[stavros]

These were open source projects that had to change licenses away from open source because of AWS. I'm not sure how the OSS companies are the bad guy here.

[sokoloff]

I think there's plenty of room for people to object to the "had to change licenses" framing. They chose to change licenses, same as they chose the original license.

That original license probably helped them with goodwill and to gain a community; when those benefits no longer exceeded the downsides of using that license, they changed licenses to one that suited them better.

Naturally, this change costs them some amount of goodwill, a portion of the very goodwill that they harvested by choosing an open-source license in the first place.

[stavros]

I don't see this as an issue with the company. They were happy to release their code as OSS, as long as that allowed them to make enough money to develop the software. It was a win/win, and them AWS came and took advantage of that.

If you leave some apples at the side of the road, with a sign "$1 per apple" or whatever, and people largely pay enough for you to continue to pick apples, that's great. If someone starts coming every day and taking the entire crate, I don't blame you for discontinuing the convenient apple sales, I blame the thief.

[paulddraper]

This analogy falls apart because there wasn’t a price for the software.

It’s like someone said “free whole apples, or $2/lb for sliced apples.”

And someone came, took all the whole apples, cut them, and sold them themselves.

[sokoloff]

In this allegory, did AWS take all the apples in the crate while paying them $1 for every apple, thus becoming the bad guy?

[bigstrat2003]

There is no bad guy. The OSS license meant that AWS was perfectly free to do as they did. If the companies who licensed their software as OSS didn't want that, then they shouldn't have used an OSS license.

[stavros]

Ok, then fine, the companies who licensed their software as OSS did that for as long as they wanted to, and then they moved away. What's the issue here?

[jen20]

There isn't one? Either with the change or with the ensuing forks, in principle.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> I'm not sure how the OSS companies are the bad guy here.

The formerly OSS companies, you mean.

[neves]

As an user, this is what really annoys me:

Crazy sneaky complex billing in which they hit you for data movement within their own systems, double billing you and sometimes triple billing you. Billing footguns and traps are everywhere - you must be a deep expert to avoid them.

IAM - the hideously complex auth and access rules system - this was invented by Lucifer sitting on his burning throne in the ninth level of Hell as the worst possible torment for those who have been sent below for using AWS.

[silverwind]

All those forks turned out to be inferior projects with substantially less contributions than the originals.