7 ms·

Good job taking responsibility, Matt. Handling this the right way. I do think there's a larger discussion about trillion dollar companies just forking a projec

Good job taking responsibility, Matt. Handling this the right way. I do think there's a larger discussion about trillion dollar companies just forking a project and announcing it as a new feature for their platform without even talking to the original creator. If there's anything to improve, "reach out first" will be a start. It's open source. You don't have to reach out. There's nothing legally or morally wrong with what you did. But you can do better. A trillion dollar company can do better to act grateful to be in the position that it's in. To be seen as a leader in a space instead of as a consumer of free work.

eitland 6y ago
> If there's anything to improve, "reach out first" will be a start. Just don't repeat Microsofts smooth talk, make-your-own and ghost strategy ;-) It is possibly even worse than just forking.
cacois 6y ago
I honestly think there's room for more than gratitude with, as you said, a trillion dollar company. I know its hard to find a balance when we want free and open tools, developed in a spirit of sharing and enabling innovation. But something feels slimy about an enormous company deriving a huge amount of revenue from a FOSS project, when they could easily compensate developer(s) with barely an impact to their bottom line. I know its not required by licensing - but "legal" doesn't always mean "right".
- sslayer 6y ago
  I think the legal aspect of the licensing determines what is "right", otherwise the definition of "right" can be interpreted different ways. Don't be fooled, both parties entered into a contract. One when they published the software, and one when they used the software. Any expectations outside of that are left undocumented.
  - cacois 6y ago
    Even agreed-upon contracts can be predatory. Maybe there should be a license that says "free and clear for everyone but trillion-dollar companies, because they should really compensate developers for value". I personally think it would be a great look for Amazon if they made it a policy to compensate developers from whom they derive significant economic value. Because they can, and because the developers deserve it.
    - barumi 6y ago
      If developers expected to get compensated for the work they explicitly and voluntarily released for anyone and everyone in the world for absolutely free, wouldn't they have released it under different terms? I mean, it sounds awfully dishonest to do a 180 on the expectations once a user with a deep enough wallet happens to be singled out.
      - sillysaurusx 6y ago
        It doesn’t seem dishonest. Companies do it (market segmentation).
        barumi 6y ago
        No, they really don't. You don't see companies giving away their products under a permissive license to, afterwards, stating that we should not pay attention to the license because they now want a chunk of our paycheck. That would be as dishonest as it gets, and the dishonesty in that doesn't change if we replace a company with a single-person company.
  - mosselman 6y ago
    “Right” can always be interpreted in many ways. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is when “right” is just one thing when we need to worry.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    A license is not a contract. Using and distributing Free Software is not entering into a contract. You certainly can have a contract around a license, but that is a whole other topic.
- orangechairs 6y ago
  Amazon stealing OSS products and repackaging them for profit is a behavior they are replicating over and over. Big and small projects alike are neither protected nor immune (see Mongo, Elastic, Redis,...) To see so much of the developer community respond by placing blame on the developers is heartbreaking and at the root of the tragedy of open source. It's either: your fault for using a permissive license OR shame on you for not using a permissive license. Where is the outrage at the predatory companies cannibalizing open source? We need to remember who the real enemy of open source is. The only company that benefits from open source shaming is Amazon. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/aws-gives-open-source-the-middle-finger/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/aws-gives-open-source-the-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19364534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19364534 [3] https://thenewstack.io/redis-pulls-back-on-open-source-licensing-citing-stingy-cloud-services/ https://thenewstack.io/redis-pulls-back-on-open-source-licen...
  - barumi 6y ago
    > Amazon stealing OSS products and repackaging them (...) Since when does providing managed services started to pass off as "stealing"? Am I stealing FLOSS projects as well if I install them on a production environment? It makes zero sense to try to pull this sort of bait-and-switch scam with FLOSS. If you release a project into the world while explicitly stating that everyone in the whole world is free to use it as they see fit then don't complain that someone was free to use it as they saw fit.
    - branweb 6y ago
      I think you have a point. But there does seem to be a difference between say using FLOSS project X as a dependency in my app vs AWS tweaking it, introducing it as a direct competitor to X, and leveraging their huge marketshare to sell it. Seems like not illegal, not even sure if it's ethically shaky, but there does seem to be a difference right?
      - barumi 6y ago
        > But there does seem to be a difference between say using FLOSS project X as a dependency in my app vs AWS tweaking it, introducing it as a direct competitor to X, and leveraging their huge marketshare to sell it. Is there really a difference at all? You're complaining that a managed service is somehow "a direct competitor". Compete in what? I mean, am I really competing with the project if I get a few instances up and running? By your line of reasoning, they are actually helping the project grow and establish itself as relevant piece of infrastructure. Somehow I don't see this being used as a justification to demand a share of the revenue the other way around. In the end, all I see is people complaining that someone who uses a project that was always freely distributed happens to have deep wallets, and somehow hey feel entitled to some cash just because a third party is rich. Where does this make any sense?
- kazinator 6y ago
  When you put a certain license on your freely redistributed code, the assumption is that you're doing it it with your eyes open, and agree with all the ramifications. Free software which requires a copyright notice to be retained in the source, but has no restrictions on run-time can be used in exactly that way: someone builds it, modifies it to taste and puts it into operation in such a way that your name does not appear anywhere. You don't necessarily want that. Do you want some AWS customers contacting you about issues with it because they found your name? What is legal coincides with what is right, because the developers had every opportunity to choose a license which exactly reflects what they think is right. It's a reasonable assumption is that they did exactly that.
- aabbcc1241 6y ago
  The FOSS developer and big company are doing different thing/role. One is doing development, which requires innovation and time; other is providing service, which requires economy of scale and network effect. It might be better if the end user tips like likecoin, which will automatically divide the tips to direct and indirect upstream contributor.
throwawgler87 6y ago
Legally no, morally yes
- branon 6y ago
  Legally no, morally no, ethically yes?
  - LukeBMM 6y ago
    I feel like this is an underrated distinction. While definitions vary, this way of looking at it resonates pretty strongly with me, personally.
  - dr_dshiv 6y ago
    Ethically yes — simply because it will be in their best interest to do so over time. That's why "Amazon can do better." Not to act more altruistically, but to do better. If they keep doing things like this, it won't be good for them.
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    Interesting, how would you define ethically different than morally?
    - jeromenerf 6y ago
      In a nutshell, ethics is a bit more pragmatic than morals. Ethos and moralis, the customs and "of the customs".
    - branon 6y ago
      It was my impression that morality regards the beliefs of one person/entity (here, Amazon) while ethics refers to a different/opposing group. So clearly Amazon has no moral scruples about doing what they did, but to us (or others) it's ethically ambiguous.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
gozzoo 6y ago
It doesn't sound exactly like taking responsibility to me. It's more an acknowledgment of the fact and damage control. Taking responsibility would suggest admitting fault and taking action to make things right. His statement doesn't have any of these. 'I am looking into it' is too vague and doesn't mean much. Probably Amazon's legal department doesn't let him say much more, but then his statement sounds unconvincing and doesn't serve the purpose of taking responsibility and assuring the comunity of their good intentions.
- SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
  Fault for what? Using code in accordance with the license selected by its developer?
  - gozzoo 6y ago
    By admitting fault I mean if you have done something wrong to speak up. Legally there is no fault as far as I can judge, but there is a moral fault. Not giving credit, not trying to involve the developer in their effort and not offering any kind of reward for his effort is definitely a fault in my dictionary. These kinds of actions damage the community much more than some people realize. Open source developers lose trust in the idea of sharing their work when seeing how huge companies with limitless resources take advantage of their effort. This happens little by little but in the end we become cynical and when we see good intended initiatives from these companies we don't trust them and simply refuse to participate. I tought Microsoft has abandoned its evil demeanor and has become a good open source citizen until this happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287 I think what they did is much worse than this, because they intentionally misled the developer by giving an impression that they were going to hire him and when he came for an interview they tricked him to share his ideas about the future of his product. What's similar is the reaction of both companies - half-heartedly acknowledging something that has already become public knowledge and giving some vague promise for fixing things.
Reimersholme 6y ago
“It’s always day one at Amazon” is their motto meaning they’ll hustle and squeeze out as much profit as possible without a thought of contributing back if it doesn’t increase their bottom line.
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
> I do think there's a larger discussion about trillion dollar companies just forking a project and announcing it as a new feature for their platform without even talking to the original creator. I always find these messages weird, because in the end it's one engineer like you and I who looked at some open sourced stuff and decided to use it, and perhaps it didn't really do what they wanted so they forked it, and it ended up being used in whatever product they were working on, and in the grand scheme of things it was not about a big trillion dollar company being evil, it was about how engineers do their work nowadays.

eitland 6y ago

> If there's anything to improve, "reach out first" will be a start. Just don't repeat Microsofts smooth talk, make-your-own and ghost strategy ;-) It is possibly even worse than just forking.

cacois 6y ago

I honestly think there's room for more than gratitude with, as you said, a trillion dollar company. I know its hard to find a balance when we want free and open tools, developed in a spirit of sharing and enabling innovation. But something feels slimy about an enormous company deriving a huge amount of revenue from a FOSS project, when they could easily compensate developer(s) with barely an impact to their bottom line. I know its not required by licensing - but "legal" doesn't always mean "right".

sslayer 6y ago
I think the legal aspect of the licensing determines what is "right", otherwise the definition of "right" can be interpreted different ways. Don't be fooled, both parties entered into a contract. One when they published the software, and one when they used the software. Any expectations outside of that are left undocumented.
- cacois 6y ago
  Even agreed-upon contracts can be predatory. Maybe there should be a license that says "free and clear for everyone but trillion-dollar companies, because they should really compensate developers for value". I personally think it would be a great look for Amazon if they made it a policy to compensate developers from whom they derive significant economic value. Because they can, and because the developers deserve it.
  - barumi 6y ago
    If developers expected to get compensated for the work they explicitly and voluntarily released for anyone and everyone in the world for absolutely free, wouldn't they have released it under different terms? I mean, it sounds awfully dishonest to do a 180 on the expectations once a user with a deep enough wallet happens to be singled out.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      It doesn’t seem dishonest. Companies do it (market segmentation).
      - barumi 6y ago
        No, they really don't. You don't see companies giving away their products under a permissive license to, afterwards, stating that we should not pay attention to the license because they now want a chunk of our paycheck. That would be as dishonest as it gets, and the dishonesty in that doesn't change if we replace a company with a single-person company.
- mosselman 6y ago
  “Right” can always be interpreted in many ways. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is when “right” is just one thing when we need to worry.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  A license is not a contract. Using and distributing Free Software is not entering into a contract. You certainly can have a contract around a license, but that is a whole other topic.
orangechairs 6y ago
Amazon stealing OSS products and repackaging them for profit is a behavior they are replicating over and over. Big and small projects alike are neither protected nor immune (see Mongo, Elastic, Redis,...) To see so much of the developer community respond by placing blame on the developers is heartbreaking and at the root of the tragedy of open source. It's either: your fault for using a permissive license OR shame on you for not using a permissive license. Where is the outrage at the predatory companies cannibalizing open source? We need to remember who the real enemy of open source is. The only company that benefits from open source shaming is Amazon. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/aws-gives-open-source-the-middle-finger/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/aws-gives-open-source-the-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19364534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19364534 [3] https://thenewstack.io/redis-pulls-back-on-open-source-licensing-citing-stingy-cloud-services/ https://thenewstack.io/redis-pulls-back-on-open-source-licen...
- barumi 6y ago
  > Amazon stealing OSS products and repackaging them (...) Since when does providing managed services started to pass off as "stealing"? Am I stealing FLOSS projects as well if I install them on a production environment? It makes zero sense to try to pull this sort of bait-and-switch scam with FLOSS. If you release a project into the world while explicitly stating that everyone in the whole world is free to use it as they see fit then don't complain that someone was free to use it as they saw fit.
  - branweb 6y ago
    I think you have a point. But there does seem to be a difference between say using FLOSS project X as a dependency in my app vs AWS tweaking it, introducing it as a direct competitor to X, and leveraging their huge marketshare to sell it. Seems like not illegal, not even sure if it's ethically shaky, but there does seem to be a difference right?
    - barumi 6y ago
      > But there does seem to be a difference between say using FLOSS project X as a dependency in my app vs AWS tweaking it, introducing it as a direct competitor to X, and leveraging their huge marketshare to sell it. Is there really a difference at all? You're complaining that a managed service is somehow "a direct competitor". Compete in what? I mean, am I really competing with the project if I get a few instances up and running? By your line of reasoning, they are actually helping the project grow and establish itself as relevant piece of infrastructure. Somehow I don't see this being used as a justification to demand a share of the revenue the other way around. In the end, all I see is people complaining that someone who uses a project that was always freely distributed happens to have deep wallets, and somehow hey feel entitled to some cash just because a third party is rich. Where does this make any sense?
kazinator 6y ago
When you put a certain license on your freely redistributed code, the assumption is that you're doing it it with your eyes open, and agree with all the ramifications. Free software which requires a copyright notice to be retained in the source, but has no restrictions on run-time can be used in exactly that way: someone builds it, modifies it to taste and puts it into operation in such a way that your name does not appear anywhere. You don't necessarily want that. Do you want some AWS customers contacting you about issues with it because they found your name? What is legal coincides with what is right, because the developers had every opportunity to choose a license which exactly reflects what they think is right. It's a reasonable assumption is that they did exactly that.
aabbcc1241 6y ago
The FOSS developer and big company are doing different thing/role. One is doing development, which requires innovation and time; other is providing service, which requires economy of scale and network effect. It might be better if the end user tips like likecoin, which will automatically divide the tips to direct and indirect upstream contributor.

throwawgler87 6y ago

Legally no, morally yes

branon 6y ago
Legally no, morally no, ethically yes?
- LukeBMM 6y ago
  I feel like this is an underrated distinction. While definitions vary, this way of looking at it resonates pretty strongly with me, personally.
- dr_dshiv 6y ago
  Ethically yes — simply because it will be in their best interest to do so over time. That's why "Amazon can do better." Not to act more altruistically, but to do better. If they keep doing things like this, it won't be good for them.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  Interesting, how would you define ethically different than morally?
  - jeromenerf 6y ago
    In a nutshell, ethics is a bit more pragmatic than morals. Ethos and moralis, the customs and "of the customs".
  - branon 6y ago
    It was my impression that morality regards the beliefs of one person/entity (here, Amazon) while ethics refers to a different/opposing group. So clearly Amazon has no moral scruples about doing what they did, but to us (or others) it's ethically ambiguous.
    - a1369209993 6y ago

gozzoo 6y ago

It doesn't sound exactly like taking responsibility to me. It's more an acknowledgment of the fact and damage control. Taking responsibility would suggest admitting fault and taking action to make things right. His statement doesn't have any of these. 'I am looking into it' is too vague and doesn't mean much. Probably Amazon's legal department doesn't let him say much more, but then his statement sounds unconvincing and doesn't serve the purpose of taking responsibility and assuring the comunity of their good intentions.

SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
Fault for what? Using code in accordance with the license selected by its developer?
- gozzoo 6y ago
  By admitting fault I mean if you have done something wrong to speak up. Legally there is no fault as far as I can judge, but there is a moral fault. Not giving credit, not trying to involve the developer in their effort and not offering any kind of reward for his effort is definitely a fault in my dictionary. These kinds of actions damage the community much more than some people realize. Open source developers lose trust in the idea of sharing their work when seeing how huge companies with limitless resources take advantage of their effort. This happens little by little but in the end we become cynical and when we see good intended initiatives from these companies we don't trust them and simply refuse to participate. I tought Microsoft has abandoned its evil demeanor and has become a good open source citizen until this happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287 I think what they did is much worse than this, because they intentionally misled the developer by giving an impression that they were going to hire him and when he came for an interview they tricked him to share his ideas about the future of his product. What's similar is the reaction of both companies - half-heartedly acknowledging something that has already become public knowledge and giving some vague promise for fixing things.

Reimersholme 6y ago

“It’s always day one at Amazon” is their motto meaning they’ll hustle and squeeze out as much profit as possible without a thought of contributing back if it doesn’t increase their bottom line.

ccktlmazeltov 6y ago

> I do think there's a larger discussion about trillion dollar companies just forking a project and announcing it as a new feature for their platform without even talking to the original creator. I always find these messages weird, because in the end it's one engineer like you and I who looked at some open sourced stuff and decided to use it, and perhaps it didn't really do what they wanted so they forked it, and it ended up being used in whatever product they were working on, and in the grand scheme of things it was not about a big trillion dollar company being evil, it was about how engineers do their work nowadays.