3 ms·

It is a good read, with good insights. The conclusion - "This tradeoff is inescapable" is true only to the extent that a new model for open source does not aris

It is a good read, with good insights. The conclusion - "This tradeoff is inescapable" is true only to the extent that a new model for open source does not arise. Stepping back a couple thousand feet, open source is an amazing thing - a bunch of people alone or in collaboration, building great things which other people then use to build other ... etc. If we can find a way to sustain this it would be great. It is to me absolutely clear to me that Amazon is benefiting from the work MongoDB has done, and without commensurate compensation. (Is anyone proposing Amazon does not benefit?) And having watched Microsoft embrace, extend and extinguish way too successfully, it is at least a concern that the effect of Amazon's action will be to the long term detriment of MongoDB. This to me is the problem that must be solved. One possibility is to modify the OSS model and licenses by creating a distinction between the members of the community and non-members like Amazon and Apple. If you want to use any OSS software (with the new license) then you must become a contibuting member of the community. If you don't want to be a member, then NO OSS software is available to you. In other words, Amazon could not pick and choose which OSS to use, but only to be a member of the community with all the benefits or not. I'm not saying this is the answer, but I am saying this is the problem we need to solve. OSS is an ecosystem - one that should and must protect itself from predators.

dest 8y ago
Isn't it what GPL is about? Forcing users to follow the rules of the club?
- ryanisnan 8y ago
  It makes sense why orgs choose not to use GPL software, though. For those reliant on proprietary tech, it's a loose thread in a knit sweater. I worry that backing orgs like MongoDB are being punished by their position, to the extent that their ability to operate will cease, which will hurt that project potentially. So in essence, GPL has a problem, whether or not it is the problem.
cmsj 8y ago
I see arguments like this a fair bit, and I'd like to explain why I'm not at all convinced. Your position is entirely predicated on the assumption that we must protect Open Source companies above the freedom of users/developers, which does not fit my beliefs on what FOSS exists to do. If MongoDB Corp goes away because everyone is using the AWS version, I would be sad to see an Open Source company end, and would feel bad for the people who lost their jobs, but I wouldn't rewrite the licenses to be Open Source Except Big Bad Cloud. FOSS licenses exist to encode a somewhat overlapping set of moral philosophies, and if a particular company (or companies) aren't able to monetise around those philosophies, they have made a strategic mistake of some kind. The response to this should not be for the VCs behind these companies to dilute the essence of FOSS until it can be used to trap users/platforms. That would lead us to a world where we have replaced the monopolies of proprietary software with monopsonies for "open source" companies, and I have zero interest in that world.
- talkingtab 8y ago
  Good points, and I may not have said this well, (and here's the obligatory but ) but... - I am not proposing to "protect OSS companies over the freedom of ...". Rather I am attempting to explore a way to provide a boundary between the entire OSS community (users/developers, etc) and those companies that attempt to exploit that community. As others have pointed out, there are many companies that make a contribution to open source on a generous basis - Microsoft, even FaceBook by golly. - I don't think the distinction there is "Big Bad Cloud", it is between those who help build and maintain open source and those who exploit it. The goal to me is that the people who have created the incredible thing we call OSS should have a reasonable expectation of sharing in the benefits.
  - cmsj 8y ago
    I would love it if more companies would get involved with FOSS communities, either by sponsoring work, or getting involved directly, but I would still argue that it's against the spirit of FOSS (and the letter of most licenses) to try and force them to. When we choose to put our software out in the world under permissive licenses, we can't really turn around and complain when people make use of it in ways that are beneficial to them. On that basis, I object to the use of the word "exploit" in its negative sense. Edit: I'd like to add one thought - there are different groups of people who could benefit by greater engagement from large corporate use of FOSS. Two that come to mind easily are the funded startups trying to find viable FOSS business models; I admire their optimism and their goals, and wish them luck. The second is individuals and small groups who tirelessly maintain incredibly important things that the rest of us take for granted and have to fight tooth and nail for every grant, every hour of their own spare time and every hour of their employer's time, to keep those things going for us. If I have to choose a group to care about supporting, it's definitely going to be the latter, for whom I have immense respect, undying gratitude, and sadly insignificant donations.

dest 8y ago

Isn't it what GPL is about? Forcing users to follow the rules of the club?

ryanisnan 8y ago
It makes sense why orgs choose not to use GPL software, though. For those reliant on proprietary tech, it's a loose thread in a knit sweater. I worry that backing orgs like MongoDB are being punished by their position, to the extent that their ability to operate will cease, which will hurt that project potentially. So in essence, GPL has a problem, whether or not it is the problem.

cmsj 8y ago

I see arguments like this a fair bit, and I'd like to explain why I'm not at all convinced. Your position is entirely predicated on the assumption that we must protect Open Source companies above the freedom of users/developers, which does not fit my beliefs on what FOSS exists to do. If MongoDB Corp goes away because everyone is using the AWS version, I would be sad to see an Open Source company end, and would feel bad for the people who lost their jobs, but I wouldn't rewrite the licenses to be Open Source Except Big Bad Cloud. FOSS licenses exist to encode a somewhat overlapping set of moral philosophies, and if a particular company (or companies) aren't able to monetise around those philosophies, they have made a strategic mistake of some kind. The response to this should not be for the VCs behind these companies to dilute the essence of FOSS until it can be used to trap users/platforms. That would lead us to a world where we have replaced the monopolies of proprietary software with monopsonies for "open source" companies, and I have zero interest in that world.

talkingtab 8y ago
Good points, and I may not have said this well, (and here's the obligatory but ) but... - I am not proposing to "protect OSS companies over the freedom of ...". Rather I am attempting to explore a way to provide a boundary between the entire OSS community (users/developers, etc) and those companies that attempt to exploit that community. As others have pointed out, there are many companies that make a contribution to open source on a generous basis - Microsoft, even FaceBook by golly. - I don't think the distinction there is "Big Bad Cloud", it is between those who help build and maintain open source and those who exploit it. The goal to me is that the people who have created the incredible thing we call OSS should have a reasonable expectation of sharing in the benefits.
- cmsj 8y ago
  I would love it if more companies would get involved with FOSS communities, either by sponsoring work, or getting involved directly, but I would still argue that it's against the spirit of FOSS (and the letter of most licenses) to try and force them to. When we choose to put our software out in the world under permissive licenses, we can't really turn around and complain when people make use of it in ways that are beneficial to them. On that basis, I object to the use of the word "exploit" in its negative sense. Edit: I'd like to add one thought - there are different groups of people who could benefit by greater engagement from large corporate use of FOSS. Two that come to mind easily are the funded startups trying to find viable FOSS business models; I admire their optimism and their goals, and wish them luck. The second is individuals and small groups who tirelessly maintain incredibly important things that the rest of us take for granted and have to fight tooth and nail for every grant, every hour of their own spare time and every hour of their employer's time, to keep those things going for us. If I have to choose a group to care about supporting, it's definitely going to be the latter, for whom I have immense respect, undying gratitude, and sadly insignificant donations.