[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.

[cylemons]

> If you actually look at the redis code base the majority of it was written by people who never worked for redis.

Thats a really big deal, how did they legally managed to do the license change? I was under the impression that only works if the original owner is the doing most work

[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.

[ceejayoz]

That’s what they eventually did, yes.

But it’s ok to be voluntarily grateful for hard work.

[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.