4 ms·

It'd be interesting if there was a way to specifically require AWS, Azure, Google Cloud (or more generally any cloud hosting reseller) to pay if they use the op

It'd be interesting if there was a way to specifically require AWS, Azure, Google Cloud (or more generally any cloud hosting reseller) to pay if they use the open source software or any derivative of it (or if they create any company which then uses it) for the purposes of reselling it to others. Basically give the open source project a 30% cut if you're going to resell it (or fork and resell it). It might be hard to do now since with AWS since with ES Amazon just forked whatever version was already permissively licensed, but it may be interesting to create a new license to protect against this for new OSS projects.

nradov 7y ago
You can put any license on your software that you want, but a license that required revenue sharing wouldn't really count as "open source".
- alfonsodev 7y ago
  I understand what you mean and totally agree with you, I just feel the need to remind (not to you) the term free software, as many things are open source but not free software [1] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - elcritch 7y ago
    Unless the AGPL becomes the new GNU default, "free" software is largely moot as well in the age of SaaS.
    - AsyncAwait 7y ago
      Most software I use daily is (luckily) not SaaS and as for AGPL being the default, for SaaS free software that's already pretty much the case today.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I understand what you mean and totally agree with you, I just feel the need to remind (not to you) the term free software, as many things are open source but not free software [ Open Source and Free Software are, as your link points out from the latter side, divergent ideologies, but they aren't substantively different in terms of concrete meaning when it comes to licensing. It is absolutely not the case that “many things” are Open Source but not Free Software, though many projects producing software which is both Free and Open Source adhere to only one of those ideologies, at least as the projects dominant ideology.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Deleted
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
    >Secondly, there are many open source licenses which are not GPL, including licenses with no redistribution rights at all. I believe the correct term for those licenses is "shared source" not open source.
jasode 7y ago
>, but it may be interesting to create a new license to protect against this for new OSS projects. Well, you also have to take the game theory of incentives into account. Let's say you develop a new database called NextGenCockroachDB with a required 30% royalty license. That type of license will alter the behavior of people evaluating it and may very well prevent it from being adopted at all. If there's no critical mass of the market using it, the 30% royalty becomes a moot point. The whole market of choices available to economic participants has to be analyzed. If potential buyers have an option to substitute a db with 30% fee with another open source db with $0 license, they will be incentivized to avoid paying 30%. If an open source db requires royalty payments from cloud platforms, it will need to have amazing technology that nobody else can duplicate.
- ivalm 7y ago
  And even if you have some tech advantage, it still needs to compete with 0 cost license + increased infrastructure (since licensing dollars can now be spent on more hardware; 30% more hardware is hard to beat).
batbomb 7y ago
The $100MM Revenue License... Once your company surpasses $100MM in revenue you have to negotiate licensing terms.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  How many engineers can be paid from $100MM revenue?[0] The *aaS company might be better served by employing engineering team to maintain their fork/API-compatible clean-room implementation a-la Amazon Aurora. 0. If company is profitable and licensing costs > overall salaries + monetary value of controlling roadmap.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
monocularvision 7y ago
Isn’t that exactly what they are doing and saying in this blog post?
dantheman 7y ago
A 30% cut of what? The core costs are in the deployment of the servers, network, security, management, etc.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Most developers would prefer a 30% cut of profits, not a 30% liability of costs, I'd assume.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> It'd be interesting if there was a way to specifically require AWS, Azure, Google Cloud (or more generally any cloud hosting reseller) to pay if they use the open source software or any derivative of it No, such a requirement makes it not OSS.

nradov 7y ago

You can put any license on your software that you want, but a license that required revenue sharing wouldn't really count as "open source".

alfonsodev 7y ago
I understand what you mean and totally agree with you, I just feel the need to remind (not to you) the term free software, as many things are open source but not free software [1] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- elcritch 7y ago
  Unless the AGPL becomes the new GNU default, "free" software is largely moot as well in the age of SaaS.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    Most software I use daily is (luckily) not SaaS and as for AGPL being the default, for SaaS free software that's already pretty much the case today.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I understand what you mean and totally agree with you, I just feel the need to remind (not to you) the term free software, as many things are open source but not free software [ Open Source and Free Software are, as your link points out from the latter side, divergent ideologies, but they aren't substantively different in terms of concrete meaning when it comes to licensing. It is absolutely not the case that “many things” are Open Source but not Free Software, though many projects producing software which is both Free and Open Source adhere to only one of those ideologies, at least as the projects dominant ideology.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
Deleted
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  >Secondly, there are many open source licenses which are not GPL, including licenses with no redistribution rights at all. I believe the correct term for those licenses is "shared source" not open source.

jasode 7y ago

>, but it may be interesting to create a new license to protect against this for new OSS projects. Well, you also have to take the game theory of incentives into account. Let's say you develop a new database called NextGenCockroachDB with a required 30% royalty license. That type of license will alter the behavior of people evaluating it and may very well prevent it from being adopted at all. If there's no critical mass of the market using it, the 30% royalty becomes a moot point. The whole market of choices available to economic participants has to be analyzed. If potential buyers have an option to substitute a db with 30% fee with another open source db with $0 license, they will be incentivized to avoid paying 30%. If an open source db requires royalty payments from cloud platforms, it will need to have amazing technology that nobody else can duplicate.

ivalm 7y ago
And even if you have some tech advantage, it still needs to compete with 0 cost license + increased infrastructure (since licensing dollars can now be spent on more hardware; 30% more hardware is hard to beat).

batbomb 7y ago

The $100MM Revenue License... Once your company surpasses $100MM in revenue you have to negotiate licensing terms.

sangnoir 7y ago
How many engineers can be paid from $100MM revenue?[0] The *aaS company might be better served by employing engineering team to maintain their fork/API-compatible clean-room implementation a-la Amazon Aurora. 0. If company is profitable and licensing costs > overall salaries + monetary value of controlling roadmap.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

monocularvision 7y ago

Isn’t that exactly what they are doing and saying in this blog post?

dantheman 7y ago

A 30% cut of what? The core costs are in the deployment of the servers, network, security, management, etc.

ForHackernews 7y ago
Most developers would prefer a 30% cut of profits, not a 30% liability of costs, I'd assume.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> It'd be interesting if there was a way to specifically require AWS, Azure, Google Cloud (or more generally any cloud hosting reseller) to pay if they use the open source software or any derivative of it No, such a requirement makes it not OSS.