4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoUnder 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 agoWithout 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 agoSo whats the lesson here? If you don't want your company to become a gazelle, you would have to become a gnu!
- ensignavenger 7y agoExcept that Amazon does contribute to less copylefted open source code, so there must be some motivation beyond licensing forcing them to.
- dredmorbius 7y agoAny breakdown you're aware of for that by licence? Note that AGPL applies to few projects at this point. Amazon is very heavily reliant on, e.g., Linux and Xen, both of which are GPL v2.
- ensignavenger 7y agoI don't know of such a breakdown, there is a list on this page of some of the projects they contribute to as well as their own open source code. https://aws.amazon.com/opensource/?opensource-all.sort-by=item.additionalFields.startDate&opensource-all.sort-order=asc https://aws.amazon.com/opensource/?opensource-all.sort-by=it...