3 ms·
AWS is emphatically NOT "taking the code", they have a license for it. If you don't want people to use your work commercially, then don't license it to them to
by latortuga 7y ago
AWS is emphatically NOT "taking the code", they have a license for it. If you don't want people to use your work commercially, then don't license it to them to use it commercially. It's pretty simple. Once you tell people what they can and can't use your software for, then it is no longer free; you don't get both.
- pas 7y agoI would have no problem with AWS were their shit open source. Starting from all the ugly Perl, that holds whatever obscure nefarious systems in perpetual black magic motion. But they take the successful open source thing, skin it, provide something similar with the same API, and that's it. This contributes back nothing to the community. It actively distorts the cashflows. (Because instead of hiring someone to set up a let's say ES cluster, or buy it from elastic co. they buy it from AWS.)
- _msw_ 7y agoFor what it's worth, here is an Amazon contribution to Sentry.... https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/pull/4231 https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/pull/4231 Many developers at Amazon love(d) using Sentry, and one wanted to contribute (in a small way).
- atonse 7y agoBut that's exactly what they're doing. They're saying you can use it for anything except building a competing product.
- marcinzm 7y ago>then it is no longer free; you don't get both. You drew a line in the sand, do not presume that someone else will draw the line in the same place. For example, some people draw the line at GPL. I, personally, greatly prefer a BSL license to a fully proprietary license. That means, from me, they do get both.
- unionpivo 7y agoWell yes but open source has well established definition. If we just let everybody call them self opensource and free, those terms will loose all of its meaning. The fact that BSL is better than completely closed source option is different discussion.