3 ms·

Definitely agree that the best way to force cloud companies into revenue sharing back would be for OSS developers to come together and agree on a standard "OSS-

by mythz 8y ago

Definitely agree that the best way to force cloud companies into revenue sharing back would be for OSS developers to come together and agree on a standard "OSS-like" license which is basically "OSS and free for everyone else except cloud hosters", if enough OSS developers do this it will force the major cloud vendors to implement a system to revenue share back to the creators of OSS their hosting. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19434427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19434427

amenod 8y ago
That would be awesome. The thing that each of these licenses lacks is recognition. When someone says it's GPL, every developer knows what the tradeoffs are. With Fair Source 25 license? Not so much.
0815test 8y ago
Haven't we tried this already? The AGPL is a bona-fide OSS license, and is standard enough that it's actually endorsed by the FSF for public-facing services, in addition to being OSI-certified. Cloud vendors avoid it like the plague, rightly or wrongly - which is what we were going for, right? Yet many "OSS-lite" companies have rejected it as not going far enough. It's mind-boggling.
- amenod 8y ago
  > Cloud vendors avoid it like the plague, rightly or wrongly I don't think they do, actually? MongoDB felt a need to change their license from AGPL to SSPL. That said, I'm on "not going far enough" side of the argument. I don't care if they distribute their code, I want them to stop competing with my service, or to pay the royalties. Alternatively, they are free to develop their own product. Note that that doesn't go for users - users are free to install and use the software as they see fit. But providing competing service which is based on the work of those that bigtech competes with, simply does not seem fair to me.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    > I want them to stop competing with my service, or to pay the royalties. Which is basically rent seeking which is what this whole thread is complaining about. And, incidentally, the whole problem copywrite was invented to solve -- you get a "time limited" monopoly on the distribution of your work. > But providing competing service which is based on the work of those that bigtech competes with, simply does not seem fair to me. <bad car analogy warning> This is like car companies saying you are free to race their cars as long as you never outcompete them on the track...

by mythz 8y ago

amenod 8y ago

That would be awesome. The thing that each of these licenses lacks is recognition. When someone says it's GPL, every developer knows what the tradeoffs are. With Fair Source 25 license? Not so much.

0815test 8y ago

Haven't we tried this already? The AGPL is a bona-fide OSS license, and is standard enough that it's actually endorsed by the FSF for public-facing services, in addition to being OSI-certified. Cloud vendors avoid it like the plague, rightly or wrongly - which is what we were going for, right? Yet many "OSS-lite" companies have rejected it as not going far enough. It's mind-boggling.

amenod 8y ago
> Cloud vendors avoid it like the plague, rightly or wrongly I don't think they do, actually? MongoDB felt a need to change their license from AGPL to SSPL. That said, I'm on "not going far enough" side of the argument. I don't care if they distribute their code, I want them to stop competing with my service, or to pay the royalties. Alternatively, they are free to develop their own product. Note that that doesn't go for users - users are free to install and use the software as they see fit. But providing competing service which is based on the work of those that bigtech competes with, simply does not seem fair to me.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > I want them to stop competing with my service, or to pay the royalties. Which is basically rent seeking which is what this whole thread is complaining about. And, incidentally, the whole problem copywrite was invented to solve -- you get a "time limited" monopoly on the distribution of your work. > But providing competing service which is based on the work of those that bigtech competes with, simply does not seem fair to me. <bad car analogy warning> This is like car companies saying you are free to race their cars as long as you never outcompete them on the track...