11 ms·

I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wante

I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they'd be allowed to continue. Problem with offering job is the likelyhood of getting redirected to some other unrelated work. instead of forking they could work with core devs to see if they wanted to support the desired features (potentially with an NDA until release). this big co strategy of "mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs" really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source.

wang_li 6y ago
It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous.
- oauea 6y ago
  No, it's just good sense. If you're adopting an open source project then you clearly think the project has merit. So the people who created this project should be considered for maintaining the company fork, since they clearly know what they're doing.
  - geodel 6y ago
    But other companies, individuals may want to go in different direction taking current code as base. This is not a good reason to hire original author.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    That doesn’t follow. There have been many projects that I’ve seen forked internally because the original author didn’t know how to write tests, maintain performance, etc. Open source projects are often very poorly maintained so being the steward of one that’s interesting does not actually qualify you to productize it for a company.
- ManBlanket 6y ago
  Does it not muddy the waters when an open source project is outright appropriated as a paid service?
  - bhhaskin 6y ago
    Not really. There are a lot of open source licenses. If you care about that sort of thing then choose a license that doesn't allow it for commerical use.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      There is no open source license [1] that prohibits commercial use. [1] Specifically, no OSI-approved open source license but that's what most people equate with "open source license."
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        Don't CC-NC licenses count?
        ghaff 6y ago
        No. They're not OSI-approved licenses. It may also be worth noting that Creative Commons put a lot of effort into trying to define noncommercial over time and wasn't able to come up with a satisfactory answer. Obviously there are cases that are clearly commercial but many others are far less clear. This was being debated over a decade ago and nothing has really changed: https://www.cnet.com/news/does-the-noncommercial-creative-commons-license-make-sense/ https://www.cnet.com/news/does-the-noncommercial-creative-co... (A legit question. Have an upvote.)
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        It's not my field, but non-commercial has been - to my knowledge - addressed multiple times in USA copyright caselaw. I can't see why that definition wouldn't apply. FWIW all the supposed complex questions they ask are clear cut. Advertising on a website makes it commercial, using works in a presentation at work makes it commercial, etc., they're all clearly commercial. A harder question might be "what if I'm not charging and am giving files away" that becomes commercial if it substantially inhibits commercial activities, for example (according to copyright caselaw I've read). But that doesn't matter that much, was the guy making $10 a month from adsense using your work commercially (legally, yes): it doesn't matter, why bother to sue them (actual damages is going to be tiny). NC is for the company advertising with your work, or ripping off your work, etc.. NC doesn't seem that hard to define but in any situation where it would be worth you suing for tortuous infringement then it's going to be very clear -- unless someone made a lot of money, or you lost a lot of money, then ...
- luhn 6y ago
  I think OS creators should reap some of the rewards of their software. Popular OS projects have provided incredible value to the industry. It's only fair that some of that value trickles down. Sometimes it does (sponsorships, job offers, etc.), but oftentimes it doesn't. Obviously there's no rule enforcing that creators get their fair share, and nature of open source means there could never be such a rule. A blessing and a curse, I suppose.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they'd be allowed to continue. > It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous. It isn't. Linus Torvalds and all kinds of other people are paid to work on the Linux kernel, sort of like how the op suggests, and if that hadn't happened Linux would probably be a shadow of what it is now. The alternative is to have some guy slave away for another's profit, and eventually burn out (which happens to tons of open source developers).
- notatoad 6y ago
  not just the profits of a closed-source licence, but far beyond the profits of a closed-source licence. an amazon developer salary is well into the six figures annually, for presumably multiple years, which is easily more in one year than it would cost to outright acquire this product.
chemeng 6y ago
If core developers are bought up by a single company, I'd be wary of the future control, direction and progress of the project. The open source version would likely stagnate as the commercial version gains features. It'd be hard not to align with company goals and plans when your paycheck depends on it. Better would be to use mechanisms that already exist to sponsor the core developers for a length of time (Patreon, liberapay, etc). Alternatively, companies like Amazon could create an internal fund that assists key open source projects they've commercialized to set up as non-profits and then makes donations to them over X number of years.
- filoleg 6y ago
  I agree, there is a certain potential danger associated with it, however, it seems like there are quite a few cases where it worked out great. A specific example that comes to mind, one of the main core developers of Webpack (Sean) got hired by Microsoft to essentially just work on Webpack on MSFT paycheck (I think now he branched out a tiny bit into other adjacent areas as well, but he is still one of the main Webpack contributors). I think it worked out great partially because he was not the sole creator, but just one of the few, and he was the only one who went to MSFT, so the other core devs still had some level of control they could exercise on their own without anyone being able to tell them otherwise.
  - chemeng 6y ago
    There are definitely cases where it seems to have worked out. My sense, like yours, is that it largely depends on how "community driven" the project is at that point. If it has many independent core developers/main contributors, or many diverse companies relying on it, it seems to work ok (for now). That said, it feels like there is a missed opportunity in the space. Most large companies already donate money toward interests in their local communities, etc. Why isn't there an easy mechanism for tech companies to donate to sustainable funding of open-source that they all depend on? My guess is that because open-source projects are rarely set up as organizations, they can't achieve 501(c)(3). It would not only be tax advantageous for companies, but would also support business continuity and recruiting pipelines. It would also be great for open-source developers and the community. Maybe there are efforts out there to create something like this?
nautilus12 6y ago
This. It's not like amazon can't afford to support financially the open source projects they coopt
EpicEng 6y ago
>this big co strategy of "mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs" really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source. Then use a different license. Hoping that a company like Amazon finds it in their hearts to always do what _you_ consider "the right thing" is just a loser of a strategy. You seem to want all of the good of open source, with none of the downsides. Good luck with that.
- divbzero 6y ago
  Which alternative license(s) would you recommend?
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  How would using GPL help here? Having the source code doesn't mean you have access to hardware like Amazon
- backtoyoujim 6y ago
  This reads like big co marketspeak of "go suck eggs twice"
  - EpicEng 6y ago
    More along the lines of "I live in the real world". I can be empathetic to the situation and think the author essentially set themselves up for something like this all at the same time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  "Don't like how shitty people can be? I don't care" - that is how this kind of comment reads. But let's move on. Interesting idea for a license. Everyone can use and modify it, but if a large company with a market cap above $100m or a company wholly funded or owned by such company decides to utilize this project as a for-profit service, then said large company must hire me at for no less than $175,000 in 2020 value.
dheera 6y ago
Not only that, but there is no mention of the original author on their press release. All they say is "Amazon launches CloudWatch Synthetics Recorder". https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/10/amazon-cloudwatch-synthetics-launches-recorder-to-generate-user-flow-scripts-for-canaries/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/10/amazon-cl... I wonder if FOSS licenses can be modified such that if you are claiming in press that you are "launching" something and it is substantially based on something open source you must state the original authors prominently in body of the press release.
- gowld 6y ago
  That's like the old "BSD License Advertising Clause"
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Surely the answer is "of course you can", just tack on "all media mentions must have an approved attribution without which all license terms are null and void" to any license and viola!?
  - dheera 6y ago
    It would be nice if that were incorporated into a well-known, publicized, and lawyer-vetted license. The problem is if I tack it on myself, nobody will ever touch or use my code even in the ways I want them to, because people fear obscure licenses if they don't have lawyers. If I release code as GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, people will use it without second thoughts. IF I release code as "BSD with modifications" people will look at it with suspect eyes. The effect I want to have is NOT to prevent large companies from using my code. In fact I want to encourage them to use it, but to also publicly mention me along with its use, which would be very valuable to career-building and job seeking. That way, when writers of open source code aren't offered jobs by the companies that use that code, at least they gain high visibility for other companies to want to hire them.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
cacois 6y ago
I think you have expressed my sentiments better than I did.
SquishyPanda23 6y ago
> this big co strategy of "mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs" really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source. I think the software community is having an "I never thought the leopards would eat my face" moment. The community pushed for a long time for licenses that donated labor to corporations because the licenses sounded more "free", and that flattered their politics. When the corporations actually pick up the value everyone left on the table, the community gets outraged.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eecc 6y ago
  Bravo, that’s more or less the TL;DR of all BSD, GPL/Apache endless flame. I love how these reckonings and syntheses are coming.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Sadly, every generation has to re-learn that the scorpion can’t help itself from stinging.
- ketzo 6y ago
  Open source software is something that has no meaningfully similar parallel in any other industry, and that has created untold billions (trillions?) of value across the world while also allowing literally anyone to carve out a piece of that value. That is special. That is wonderful. It is a place for idealism. And honestly, it's worth getting angry about when people (and companies) don't respect it and improve upon it.
  - new_realist 6y ago
    Patents and copyright are the parallels in other industries, although they compensate inventors more. Eventually it all goes into the public domain.
coddle-hark 6y ago
On the other hand, I don’t write FOSS in the hopes that some corporate overlord will eventually recognise my work and essentially buy the project from me with a job offer. I write FOSS because fuck you I have a computer and an internet connection and I’m going to do whatever I want. If you want to fork it, go ahead, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to spend my time (paid or unpaid) writing features that only make sense to Amazon.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

wang_li 6y ago

It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous.

oauea 6y ago
No, it's just good sense. If you're adopting an open source project then you clearly think the project has merit. So the people who created this project should be considered for maintaining the company fork, since they clearly know what they're doing.
- geodel 6y ago
  But other companies, individuals may want to go in different direction taking current code as base. This is not a good reason to hire original author.
- kortilla 6y ago
  That doesn’t follow. There have been many projects that I’ve seen forked internally because the original author didn’t know how to write tests, maintain performance, etc. Open source projects are often very poorly maintained so being the steward of one that’s interesting does not actually qualify you to productize it for a company.
ManBlanket 6y ago
Does it not muddy the waters when an open source project is outright appropriated as a paid service?
- bhhaskin 6y ago
  Not really. There are a lot of open source licenses. If you care about that sort of thing then choose a license that doesn't allow it for commerical use.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    There is no open source license [1] that prohibits commercial use. [1] Specifically, no OSI-approved open source license but that's what most people equate with "open source license."
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Don't CC-NC licenses count?
      - ghaff 6y ago
        No. They're not OSI-approved licenses. It may also be worth noting that Creative Commons put a lot of effort into trying to define noncommercial over time and wasn't able to come up with a satisfactory answer. Obviously there are cases that are clearly commercial but many others are far less clear. This was being debated over a decade ago and nothing has really changed: https://www.cnet.com/news/does-the-noncommercial-creative-commons-license-make-sense/ https://www.cnet.com/news/does-the-noncommercial-creative-co... (A legit question. Have an upvote.)
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        It's not my field, but non-commercial has been - to my knowledge - addressed multiple times in USA copyright caselaw. I can't see why that definition wouldn't apply. FWIW all the supposed complex questions they ask are clear cut. Advertising on a website makes it commercial, using works in a presentation at work makes it commercial, etc., they're all clearly commercial. A harder question might be "what if I'm not charging and am giving files away" that becomes commercial if it substantially inhibits commercial activities, for example (according to copyright caselaw I've read). But that doesn't matter that much, was the guy making $10 a month from adsense using your work commercially (legally, yes): it doesn't matter, why bother to sue them (actual damages is going to be tiny). NC is for the company advertising with your work, or ripping off your work, etc.. NC doesn't seem that hard to define but in any situation where it would be worth you suing for tortuous infringement then it's going to be very clear -- unless someone made a lot of money, or you lost a lot of money, then ...
luhn 6y ago
I think OS creators should reap some of the rewards of their software. Popular OS projects have provided incredible value to the industry. It's only fair that some of that value trickles down. Sometimes it does (sponsorships, job offers, etc.), but oftentimes it doesn't. Obviously there's no rule enforcing that creators get their fair share, and nature of open source means there could never be such a rule. A blessing and a curse, I suppose.
ardy42 6y ago
>> I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they'd be allowed to continue. > It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous. It isn't. Linus Torvalds and all kinds of other people are paid to work on the Linux kernel, sort of like how the op suggests, and if that hadn't happened Linux would probably be a shadow of what it is now. The alternative is to have some guy slave away for another's profit, and eventually burn out (which happens to tons of open source developers).
notatoad 6y ago
not just the profits of a closed-source licence, but far beyond the profits of a closed-source licence. an amazon developer salary is well into the six figures annually, for presumably multiple years, which is easily more in one year than it would cost to outright acquire this product.

chemeng 6y ago

If core developers are bought up by a single company, I'd be wary of the future control, direction and progress of the project. The open source version would likely stagnate as the commercial version gains features. It'd be hard not to align with company goals and plans when your paycheck depends on it. Better would be to use mechanisms that already exist to sponsor the core developers for a length of time (Patreon, liberapay, etc). Alternatively, companies like Amazon could create an internal fund that assists key open source projects they've commercialized to set up as non-profits and then makes donations to them over X number of years.

filoleg 6y ago
I agree, there is a certain potential danger associated with it, however, it seems like there are quite a few cases where it worked out great. A specific example that comes to mind, one of the main core developers of Webpack (Sean) got hired by Microsoft to essentially just work on Webpack on MSFT paycheck (I think now he branched out a tiny bit into other adjacent areas as well, but he is still one of the main Webpack contributors). I think it worked out great partially because he was not the sole creator, but just one of the few, and he was the only one who went to MSFT, so the other core devs still had some level of control they could exercise on their own without anyone being able to tell them otherwise.
- chemeng 6y ago
  There are definitely cases where it seems to have worked out. My sense, like yours, is that it largely depends on how "community driven" the project is at that point. If it has many independent core developers/main contributors, or many diverse companies relying on it, it seems to work ok (for now). That said, it feels like there is a missed opportunity in the space. Most large companies already donate money toward interests in their local communities, etc. Why isn't there an easy mechanism for tech companies to donate to sustainable funding of open-source that they all depend on? My guess is that because open-source projects are rarely set up as organizations, they can't achieve 501(c)(3). It would not only be tax advantageous for companies, but would also support business continuity and recruiting pipelines. It would also be great for open-source developers and the community. Maybe there are efforts out there to create something like this?

nautilus12 6y ago

This. It's not like amazon can't afford to support financially the open source projects they coopt

EpicEng 6y ago

>this big co strategy of "mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs" really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source. Then use a different license. Hoping that a company like Amazon finds it in their hearts to always do what _you_ consider "the right thing" is just a loser of a strategy. You seem to want all of the good of open source, with none of the downsides. Good luck with that.

divbzero 6y ago
Which alternative license(s) would you recommend?
Ar-Curunir 6y ago
How would using GPL help here? Having the source code doesn't mean you have access to hardware like Amazon
backtoyoujim 6y ago
This reads like big co marketspeak of "go suck eggs twice"
- EpicEng 6y ago
  More along the lines of "I live in the real world". I can be empathetic to the situation and think the author essentially set themselves up for something like this all at the same time.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
unethical_ban 6y ago
"Don't like how shitty people can be? I don't care" - that is how this kind of comment reads. But let's move on. Interesting idea for a license. Everyone can use and modify it, but if a large company with a market cap above $100m or a company wholly funded or owned by such company decides to utilize this project as a for-profit service, then said large company must hire me at for no less than $175,000 in 2020 value.

dheera 6y ago

Not only that, but there is no mention of the original author on their press release. All they say is "Amazon launches CloudWatch Synthetics Recorder". https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/10/amazon-cloudwatch-synthetics-launches-recorder-to-generate-user-flow-scripts-for-canaries/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/10/amazon-cl... I wonder if FOSS licenses can be modified such that if you are claiming in press that you are "launching" something and it is substantially based on something open source you must state the original authors prominently in body of the press release.

gowld 6y ago
That's like the old "BSD License Advertising Clause"
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Surely the answer is "of course you can", just tack on "all media mentions must have an approved attribution without which all license terms are null and void" to any license and viola!?
- dheera 6y ago
  It would be nice if that were incorporated into a well-known, publicized, and lawyer-vetted license. The problem is if I tack it on myself, nobody will ever touch or use my code even in the ways I want them to, because people fear obscure licenses if they don't have lawyers. If I release code as GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, people will use it without second thoughts. IF I release code as "BSD with modifications" people will look at it with suspect eyes. The effect I want to have is NOT to prevent large companies from using my code. In fact I want to encourage them to use it, but to also publicly mention me along with its use, which would be very valuable to career-building and job seeking. That way, when writers of open source code aren't offered jobs by the companies that use that code, at least they gain high visibility for other companies to want to hire them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

cacois 6y ago

I think you have expressed my sentiments better than I did.

SquishyPanda23 6y ago

> this big co strategy of "mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs" really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source. I think the software community is having an "I never thought the leopards would eat my face" moment. The community pushed for a long time for licenses that donated labor to corporations because the licenses sounded more "free", and that flattered their politics. When the corporations actually pick up the value everyone left on the table, the community gets outraged.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eecc 6y ago
Bravo, that’s more or less the TL;DR of all BSD, GPL/Apache endless flame. I love how these reckonings and syntheses are coming.
- toyg 6y ago
  Sadly, every generation has to re-learn that the scorpion can’t help itself from stinging.
ketzo 6y ago
Open source software is something that has no meaningfully similar parallel in any other industry, and that has created untold billions (trillions?) of value across the world while also allowing literally anyone to carve out a piece of that value. That is special. That is wonderful. It is a place for idealism. And honestly, it's worth getting angry about when people (and companies) don't respect it and improve upon it.
- new_realist 6y ago
  Patents and copyright are the parallels in other industries, although they compensate inventors more. Eventually it all goes into the public domain.

coddle-hark 6y ago

On the other hand, I don’t write FOSS in the hopes that some corporate overlord will eventually recognise my work and essentially buy the project from me with a job offer. I write FOSS because fuck you I have a computer and an internet connection and I’m going to do whatever I want. If you want to fork it, go ahead, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to spend my time (paid or unpaid) writing features that only make sense to Amazon.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]