3 ms·

> There aren't simple clear answers to these questions, only a slowly evolving discussion. Certainly, and I think that if we want OSS to thrive we need to move

> There aren't simple clear answers to these questions, only a slowly evolving discussion. Certainly, and I think that if we want OSS to thrive we need to move towards a future where it's easy for companies to make a return on their investment by releasing OSS. I think Amazon and all the "I provide your software as a service" providers eat into that and hinder that future. Yes, GPLv3 was meant to fight Tivoization, but it never anticipated providers providing services on an OSS product without contributing significantly, in combination with the companies that develop the OSS hoping to make money off the same hosted service that the former undercuts. Basically, monetization strategies for OSS are few, and one that is beneficial for both the company and the consumer is providing hosted services. A third company that doesn't have to develop the software is usually a good enough competitor, but since the developer has the obvious support/knowledge advantage, they can still compete. This breaks down when Amazon comes in with its lock-in advantage and sucsk all the money away from the developer. This is why we're seeing these new licenses, because there's no way currently to be "OSS except Amazon". I think we do need to figure out some way.

fakedang 6y ago
I believe in a previous thread, someone suggested OSS except companies having this much of a revenue (since market cap is a bit of a variable metric). Why wouldn't that be a viable model?
- StavrosK 6y ago
  I would love that, and think it's a great model (basically "you don't have to pay us if/while you aren't making money from this"), but as far as I understand it, it's hard to enforce. Amazon can just make a subsidiary that makes less than that amount (or no money at all) and skirt that requirement.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It would be a much stronger restriction than they're looking for. If no developer at Amazon, Google, etc. is allowed to even use Elasticsearch, that severely impairs the viability of the project. (Depending on the revenue threshold, it could end up being a problem for Elastic too - they're not exactly a small company.)
- lacker 6y ago
  I wouldn't use software like that. Imagine you build a company using some software, and it was free until you hit $X in revenue. One day far down the road, your company is doing well and you start to get close to $X. You realize you have to acquire a license, ask them for one, and now... you just have to pay whatever they ask for? You're locked in to someone who could quote you whatever price they want. Unless it's really easy to rip out this software, it seems like a huge pain.
- pydry 6y ago
  Easy to work around with "hollywood accounting". Amazon could license the software from a shell company they own that makes very little revenue.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But imagine where we'd be if this discussion had happened 30 years ago, in the days when the monetization model was charging a distribution fee. How much of the modern Internet would have had to be excluded from free software licensing to protect that? I have no issue with tweaking OSS licenses to respond to the circumstances of the times, but tweaking them in order to ensure I can make lots of money seems anti-competitive and anti-innovative.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  I agree, but I think it's generally "tweaking the rules so they can stay alive" at this point, ie not about increasing an already big revenue stream.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    That's certainly what it looks like Elastic is trying to imply, but their revenue was over $400 million last year.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      For comparison, AWS does about $40B/year in revenue.
jabl 6y ago
> Yes, GPLv3 was meant to fight Tivoization, but it never anticipated providers providing services on an OSS product without contributing significantly Well, the so-called "service provider loophole" was certainly well-known when GPLv3 was drafted. That's why AGPLv2 was created some years prior. IIRC early GPLv3 drafts contained AGPL-style language, but several of the companies involved in the GPLv3 drafting process (such as Google) objected, and those clauses were withdrawn from the final GPLv3.

fakedang 6y ago

I believe in a previous thread, someone suggested OSS except companies having this much of a revenue (since market cap is a bit of a variable metric). Why wouldn't that be a viable model?

StavrosK 6y ago
I would love that, and think it's a great model (basically "you don't have to pay us if/while you aren't making money from this"), but as far as I understand it, it's hard to enforce. Amazon can just make a subsidiary that makes less than that amount (or no money at all) and skirt that requirement.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It would be a much stronger restriction than they're looking for. If no developer at Amazon, Google, etc. is allowed to even use Elasticsearch, that severely impairs the viability of the project. (Depending on the revenue threshold, it could end up being a problem for Elastic too - they're not exactly a small company.)
lacker 6y ago
I wouldn't use software like that. Imagine you build a company using some software, and it was free until you hit $X in revenue. One day far down the road, your company is doing well and you start to get close to $X. You realize you have to acquire a license, ask them for one, and now... you just have to pay whatever they ask for? You're locked in to someone who could quote you whatever price they want. Unless it's really easy to rip out this software, it seems like a huge pain.
pydry 6y ago
Easy to work around with "hollywood accounting". Amazon could license the software from a shell company they own that makes very little revenue.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

But imagine where we'd be if this discussion had happened 30 years ago, in the days when the monetization model was charging a distribution fee. How much of the modern Internet would have had to be excluded from free software licensing to protect that? I have no issue with tweaking OSS licenses to respond to the circumstances of the times, but tweaking them in order to ensure I can make lots of money seems anti-competitive and anti-innovative.

StavrosK 6y ago
I agree, but I think it's generally "tweaking the rules so they can stay alive" at this point, ie not about increasing an already big revenue stream.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  That's certainly what it looks like Elastic is trying to imply, but their revenue was over $400 million last year.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    For comparison, AWS does about $40B/year in revenue.

jabl 6y ago

> Yes, GPLv3 was meant to fight Tivoization, but it never anticipated providers providing services on an OSS product without contributing significantly Well, the so-called "service provider loophole" was certainly well-known when GPLv3 was drafted. That's why AGPLv2 was created some years prior. IIRC early GPLv3 drafts contained AGPL-style language, but several of the companies involved in the GPLv3 drafting process (such as Google) objected, and those clauses were withdrawn from the final GPLv3.