[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.

[dns_snek]

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

Because parasitic antisocial behavior is viewed negatively.

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

Trying to apply market dynamics to selling things you didn't produce (or pay for) is fascinating...

[gcr]

They both sell it for profit, but Amazon doesn’t contribute changes upstream, so the public + rest of the industry won’t benefit from their work. It’s not an equivalence.

[dmantis]

> Amazon doesn’t contribute changes upstream

Are you sure that's the case with AGPL? Cause they can sue them and enforce the contribution. I doubt that's the case. And those who went with MIT/BSD openly allow distribution without contribution.

[gcr]

In the USA, small companies don’t generally have the resources to take large companies to court, even if they’re in the right.

[kortilla]

Many companies build on top of open source to make money and don’t contribute back. That’s not the problem.

[DangitBobby]

Because you don't see AWS as having sort of moral or ethical duties. I see all companies and people as having moral and ethical duties.