6 ms·

Missing piece of the argument -- the AGPL service provider clause (that didn't make it into GPL v3). The author is talking about physical infrastructure as add

Missing piece of the argument -- the AGPL service provider clause (that didn't make it into GPL v3). The author is talking about physical infrastructure as adding value, and they're right, but there's a middle layer that cloud vendors add to their managed tools -- things like auto backup, upgrade and resize for mysql. These are enhancements to open source DBs etc that cloud vendors keep in-house as secret sauce. This makes the stock version of open source software hard to operate in the way AMZN / GOOG operate it, while still allowing AMZN / GOOG to benefit from community effort without giving much back.

wmf 7y ago
With AGPL you still get eaten, just in a different way. The cloud providers will rewrite your software from scratch while maintaining protocol/API compatibility.
- jdsully 7y ago
  That's just simple competition that we've always had. Microsoft working on a competitor to your product was the huge fear of the 90s. Cloud providers competing with your own source code is a new phemonema. The original thesis would be that brand loyalty would be strong enough to prevent forking like this. "You don't want that third-rate version, get the real thing from the original authors!". It appears that the customer base assumes quality is roughly equal considering its mostly the same code.
  - type0 7y ago
    And in this case the brand loyalty of AWS is stronger
  - detaro 7y ago
    In many businesses, getting permission to buy/license from a new supplier is way more effort than just selecting another option at the cloud provider you're already set up with.
- slovenlyrobot 7y ago
  Could a trick along the lines of the Apple SMC copyrighted phrase be used to poison a protocol against a cloud provider? Release your client and server under a license like AGPL, with an attached file not under AGPL that both components require. It's not possible to say the code is non-free because it's explicitly free, but packaging and placement (such as e.g. default pip installs using a trademarked name) could ensure at least some pain is felt to make a typical client talk to a server that does not have that file. Perhaps the file's license allows to be embedded anywhere so long as it is only used to play the role of a client
  - wmf 7y ago
    I don't think using evil for good is the answer here. The survival of these companies isn't that important (except to them of course).
- ummonk 7y ago
  Sounds like open source companies will just need to become patent trolls. At least if Google is unable to successfully win the appeal in the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    A company enforcing software patents is no longer "open source" in a meaningful sense.
    - ummonk 7y ago
      Yeah, but open source is just not a generally good business model, and open source companies seem to be rediscovering the reason intellectual property exists, leading to cognitive dissonance. Open source is a good business strategy when you're trying to achieve vendor lock-in via price-dumping, a la what Google did with Android (and has been fined for in the EU).
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Which I’d argue is not something you should be protected against. Why should you be able to prevent people from reimplementing your product?
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  AGPL doesn't protect the Free Software business. It protects the Free Software code itself. The fact that a company backing an AGPL-licensed work goes under isn't the direct concern of the license. The fact that the code itself remains as Free Software, with a source-release obligation, even when run as an online service, is the principle concern. Copyleft free software licenses, as with the GPL and AGPL, promote the concept and system of free software, first and foremost.
  - rienbdj 7y ago
    You're right, but there's another concern: who maintains the software? The original developers forming a company that supports development is not possible if the company is not protected by the license in some way.
    - cnorthwood 7y ago
      Under the philosophy of the FSF, that'd be the "commons", i.e., the users of the software take on responsibility for adding new features or fixing bugs that affect them, and then contributing it back.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Without the provisions of the AGPL, an Amazon could co-opt some GPL'd (or even more permissively / less copylefted licence: MIT/BSD as examples), make extensive changes, use the code as part of an online service, and have no obligation to provide source to user(s). Under the AGPL, the source-disclosure provision persists. In both cases, Amazon is doing software development, but in the first, they're not contributing back to the codebase. In the second, they are. Amazon are maintaining the software. Along with other users.
      - type0 7y ago
        So whats the lesson here? If you don't want your company to become a gazelle, you would have to become a gnu!
      - 7y ago

wmf 7y ago

With AGPL you still get eaten, just in a different way. The cloud providers will rewrite your software from scratch while maintaining protocol/API compatibility.

jdsully 7y ago
That's just simple competition that we've always had. Microsoft working on a competitor to your product was the huge fear of the 90s. Cloud providers competing with your own source code is a new phemonema. The original thesis would be that brand loyalty would be strong enough to prevent forking like this. "You don't want that third-rate version, get the real thing from the original authors!". It appears that the customer base assumes quality is roughly equal considering its mostly the same code.
- type0 7y ago
  And in this case the brand loyalty of AWS is stronger
- detaro 7y ago
  In many businesses, getting permission to buy/license from a new supplier is way more effort than just selecting another option at the cloud provider you're already set up with.
slovenlyrobot 7y ago
Could a trick along the lines of the Apple SMC copyrighted phrase be used to poison a protocol against a cloud provider? Release your client and server under a license like AGPL, with an attached file not under AGPL that both components require. It's not possible to say the code is non-free because it's explicitly free, but packaging and placement (such as e.g. default pip installs using a trademarked name) could ensure at least some pain is felt to make a typical client talk to a server that does not have that file. Perhaps the file's license allows to be embedded anywhere so long as it is only used to play the role of a client
- wmf 7y ago
  I don't think using evil for good is the answer here. The survival of these companies isn't that important (except to them of course).
ummonk 7y ago
Sounds like open source companies will just need to become patent trolls. At least if Google is unable to successfully win the appeal in the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit.
- pjc50 7y ago
  A company enforcing software patents is no longer "open source" in a meaningful sense.
  - ummonk 7y ago
    Yeah, but open source is just not a generally good business model, and open source companies seem to be rediscovering the reason intellectual property exists, leading to cognitive dissonance. Open source is a good business strategy when you're trying to achieve vendor lock-in via price-dumping, a la what Google did with Android (and has been fined for in the EU).
saagarjha 7y ago
Which I’d argue is not something you should be protected against. Why should you be able to prevent people from reimplementing your product?
dredmorbius 7y ago
AGPL doesn't protect the Free Software business. It protects the Free Software code itself. The fact that a company backing an AGPL-licensed work goes under isn't the direct concern of the license. The fact that the code itself remains as Free Software, with a source-release obligation, even when run as an online service, is the principle concern. Copyleft free software licenses, as with the GPL and AGPL, promote the concept and system of free software, first and foremost.
- rienbdj 7y ago
  You're right, but there's another concern: who maintains the software? The original developers forming a company that supports development is not possible if the company is not protected by the license in some way.
  - cnorthwood 7y ago
    Under the philosophy of the FSF, that'd be the "commons", i.e., the users of the software take on responsibility for adding new features or fixing bugs that affect them, and then contributing it back.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Without the provisions of the AGPL, an Amazon could co-opt some GPL'd (or even more permissively / less copylefted licence: MIT/BSD as examples), make extensive changes, use the code as part of an online service, and have no obligation to provide source to user(s). Under the AGPL, the source-disclosure provision persists. In both cases, Amazon is doing software development, but in the first, they're not contributing back to the codebase. In the second, they are. Amazon are maintaining the software. Along with other users.
    - type0 7y ago
      So whats the lesson here? If you don't want your company to become a gazelle, you would have to become a gnu!
    - 7y ago