4 ms·

An angle I don't see often enough -- the recent thread on Elastic's change in license was full of a lot of people bashing AWS, and as much as I dislike their pr

An angle I don't see often enough -- the recent thread on Elastic's change in license was full of a lot of people bashing AWS, and as much as I dislike their practices, you can't blame sharks for doing what sharks do. If you don't want your software to be usable by everyone for whatever purpose (even purposes you disagree with), then don't publish it under F/OSS or similar permissive licenses -- let everyone know your intentions from the start. As much as I dislike AWS's heft (which I think allows it to muscle in on spaces it isn't the best at, and people will happily choose worse products because they're "backed" by AWS), I also think there's a lot of value in the F/OSS world to be exploited, and I'd like to do the exploiting someday. I'll leave it to others on whether it's right to draw the line at size of corporation, but I'd be just as "in the wrong" as AWS is. There's no reason both the community and the corporate interests trying to profit (entrepreneurs who want to offer hosted versions included) can't have a symbiotic rather than parasitic relationship -- all it takes is returning some of the revenue to the appropriate open source projects and supporting them. Postgres and the related companies have been making it work for a long time now. I think part of what's exacerbating this parasitic relationship might be the VC model -- if you make some open-core software, take a bunch of VC money (or don't and simply overstretch your reach), and now need to find some hypergrowth (tm) to keep the house of cards the right side up, maybe it makes more sense that the relationship would be more parasitic than symbiotic. A lot of newer developers are about to find out the difference between F/OSS and shareware.

fartcannon 6y ago
You want to 'exploit' F/OSS? That's kind of a sick way to phrase it, no? This is one of the largest, kindest shares of modern human knowledge/artwork in history. Don't _exploit_ the generosity of other people. Use it and contribute back to it. Framing it as something to exploit really emphasizes the need for the GPL.
- mettamage 6y ago
  I wouldn't take the term so strongly. The way I see it in the way my grandparent meant it, exploitation is a capitalistic word and frame/narrative. For example, all companies are exploiting employees (by gaining a profit on them) and certain business opportunities in some shape or form. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad as "giving back" might be part of that exploitation. Many businesses have incentives to keep the exploitation sustainable. If you have an issue with this, then you have an issue with capitalism, IMO. And that's fine, but I wouldn't frame it as having an issue against exploitation.
  - fartcannon 6y ago
    The casualness with which you're fine to exploit, not 'employ' your employees is a bit unsettling. If you can't hear the issue with your language, go tell your reports that you've decided to exploit them.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit Definition of exploit: transitive verb 1: to make productive use of : UTILIZE exploiting your talents exploit your opponent's weakness
      - fartcannon 6y ago
        Conveniently leaving out the second definition from your own link: 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage, exploiting migrant farm workers The article is about definition 2 folks.
        ddevault 6y ago
        Aye, there are two definitions. They are not reliant on each other. The word "lead" also has several definitions, among them: the metal, and the thing you use to walk your dog. A dog needn't be involved in the former, nor the metal in the latter. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lead https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lead
        musingsole 6y ago
        I too find the key to communication is to ignore the definition plainly being used by those I'm talking with in favor of a secondary definition that allows me to manufacture a needless gripe out of the thin air.
        benchaney 6y ago
        What difference does it make if there is an alternate meaning to the word than the one they are using?
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  I'd say the poster is telling it like it is. Better than 99.9% of people downloading FOSS software have no intention whatsoever of adding code or contributing back in any way and have no interest in the FOSS philosophy in general. The only value to them is the "free as in beer" aspect. If that isn't exploiting FOSS developers generosity, what is?
  - fartcannon 6y ago
    I suppose I'm rather surprised to hear it done so flagrantly, if I am to explain my disgust at the use of language here. FOSS is a beautiful thing. How many people's live s are made better by it? Countless.
    - hardwaresofton 6y ago
      So you'd rather I minced words? I did not disparage F/OSS, the exploitation was about what is happening right now and will continue to happen -- corporations (and have started to realize that they can leverage F/OSS for their own ends, whether it's releasing open core stuff, or using CDDLs and getting people to sign over commits (which are IP), or making the code permissively licensed but controlling the development through other means. I also believe F/OSS is a beautiful thing, which is why I try to look at what is happening with it optimistically and cynically. P.S. Example of "other means" -- I personally think this is the model that Kubernetes and some other large single-company-backed F/OSS projects is doing, they've essentially built bureaucracy which replicates the internal politics you'd find at a large company, and I think it'd be quite difficult for a regular contributor, no matter how ardent, to get a "board seat" if not backed by some large company. Kubernetes was a better tool than others, but Google also spent a lot of money to propel it forward.
- hardwaresofton 6y ago
  > You want to 'exploit' F/OSS? That's kind of a sick way to phrase it, no? This is one of the largest, kindest shares of modern human knowledge/artwork in history. I'm simply using the least charitable language to describe what I'd like to do (and what AWS has already done) -- there's no need to sugar coat. If someone (normally a group of people) has worked hard to create some software, and released this software as open source, and I take to hosting it for profit, I am exploiting their efforts without a doubt if only in the most literal definition-driven sense. As one would "exploit" natural resources, I would be taking the product of their effort and used it to generate profit. Whether they were kind or noble has nothing to do with it, though of course I agree that F/OSS is one of (if not the) largest and kindest sharing of knowledge in human history. I owe my career to F/OSS and the community that powers it (and of course a few schools and teachers along the way), I haven't forgotten. What I was trying to point out is that it's relatively easy for me to make a decision to give back 10/20/30+% of revenue (never take % shares of profit, see the movie industry) as a bootstrapper, where companies who are VC funded may not be able to make such a choice easily because they have other capitalists to answer to. > Don't _exploit_ the generosity of other people. Use it and contribute back to it. Framing it as something to exploit really emphasizes the need for the GPL. This is very close to my point -- if you don't want this to happen (no matter what someone calls it), pick the appropriate license -- BSSL or a similar license. Do not depend on the kindness of strangers, it's not a good long term strategy -- the GPL was invented to give that ideology teeth and it's been outrageously successful. Sentry, a well known and liked player in the error reporting space does so[0]. People use Sentry, and contribute to it, and love it. People who think picking GPL licenses will offer the same protections are somewhat misguided, the closes you can get is AGPLv3 which to be honest isn't even right, because hosting unmodified versions seemed to be permitted. I call it exploitation because that is what you have to assume that companies (which exist for a very specific reason in just about every economy in the world) will almost certainly skew in the direction of exploitation, they are basically duty-bound to do so. [0]: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE
  - fartcannon 6y ago
    I was clearly very wrong about your intent. I like both your position and your reasoning for it. Good luck out there!
danaris 6y ago
Sharks are animals: amoral, without judgement for their behavior. AWS is a company made up of human beings, with the capacity to choose to do good. If they do things that we would consider to be immoral, we can absolutely blame and judge them for that, regardless of whether it's "what they do".
- mettamage 6y ago
  I wouldn't compare them to sharks either since that puts AWS into a fixed frame that I don't think it always is. However, there has been a perspectives of seeing organizations as a form of AI (I read it on HN somewhere), and if you look at it from that perspective the ethics become bureaucratic which opens a whole can of worms of what that means :)
- hardwaresofton 6y ago
  > Sharks are animals: amoral, without judgement for their behavior. I was wrong to say that you can't blame Amazon for doing what they do -- what I should have said was that people shouldn't be "surprised". Work yourself into a fit over it if you want, but the next time it happens, you shouldn't be surprised. My point was meant to be that sharks do shark things, and companies that are Amazon's size do things that companies at Amazon's size would do. Both happenings should not illicit much surprise. > AWS is a company made up of human beings, with the capacity to choose to do good. If they do things that we would consider to be immoral, we can absolutely blame and judge them for that, regardless of whether it's "what they do". This is great in theory, but there are such things as shareholders, fiduciary duty, and binding financial covenants. Companies have a capacity to choose to do good, but they have a stronger duty to produce profit for stakeholders. Companies can be ethical, but there is no reason to believe that they will be unless it's written into their bylaws, or they are structured differently from the outset (ex. Mozilla Foundation). Another article hit the front page from 2019 about Google vetoing the power of a privacy-focused W3C working group to prevent technical changes that would hurt privacy. This is another instance -- you can blame and gnash your teeth all you want, but Google is going to do what Google does, and that's offer technological advancement and ease at the cost of privacy (sometimes) if it helps them sell more/more expensive ads.

fartcannon 6y ago

You want to 'exploit' F/OSS? That's kind of a sick way to phrase it, no? This is one of the largest, kindest shares of modern human knowledge/artwork in history. Don't _exploit_ the generosity of other people. Use it and contribute back to it. Framing it as something to exploit really emphasizes the need for the GPL.

mettamage 6y ago
I wouldn't take the term so strongly. The way I see it in the way my grandparent meant it, exploitation is a capitalistic word and frame/narrative. For example, all companies are exploiting employees (by gaining a profit on them) and certain business opportunities in some shape or form. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad as "giving back" might be part of that exploitation. Many businesses have incentives to keep the exploitation sustainable. If you have an issue with this, then you have an issue with capitalism, IMO. And that's fine, but I wouldn't frame it as having an issue against exploitation.
- fartcannon 6y ago
  The casualness with which you're fine to exploit, not 'employ' your employees is a bit unsettling. If you can't hear the issue with your language, go tell your reports that you've decided to exploit them.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit Definition of exploit: transitive verb 1: to make productive use of : UTILIZE exploiting your talents exploit your opponent's weakness
    - fartcannon 6y ago
      Conveniently leaving out the second definition from your own link: 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage, exploiting migrant farm workers The article is about definition 2 folks.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        Aye, there are two definitions. They are not reliant on each other. The word "lead" also has several definitions, among them: the metal, and the thing you use to walk your dog. A dog needn't be involved in the former, nor the metal in the latter. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lead https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lead
      - musingsole 6y ago
        I too find the key to communication is to ignore the definition plainly being used by those I'm talking with in favor of a secondary definition that allows me to manufacture a needless gripe out of the thin air.
      - benchaney 6y ago
        What difference does it make if there is an alternate meaning to the word than the one they are using?
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
I'd say the poster is telling it like it is. Better than 99.9% of people downloading FOSS software have no intention whatsoever of adding code or contributing back in any way and have no interest in the FOSS philosophy in general. The only value to them is the "free as in beer" aspect. If that isn't exploiting FOSS developers generosity, what is?
- fartcannon 6y ago
  I suppose I'm rather surprised to hear it done so flagrantly, if I am to explain my disgust at the use of language here. FOSS is a beautiful thing. How many people's live s are made better by it? Countless.
  - hardwaresofton 6y ago
    So you'd rather I minced words? I did not disparage F/OSS, the exploitation was about what is happening right now and will continue to happen -- corporations (and have started to realize that they can leverage F/OSS for their own ends, whether it's releasing open core stuff, or using CDDLs and getting people to sign over commits (which are IP), or making the code permissively licensed but controlling the development through other means. I also believe F/OSS is a beautiful thing, which is why I try to look at what is happening with it optimistically and cynically. P.S. Example of "other means" -- I personally think this is the model that Kubernetes and some other large single-company-backed F/OSS projects is doing, they've essentially built bureaucracy which replicates the internal politics you'd find at a large company, and I think it'd be quite difficult for a regular contributor, no matter how ardent, to get a "board seat" if not backed by some large company. Kubernetes was a better tool than others, but Google also spent a lot of money to propel it forward.
hardwaresofton 6y ago
> You want to 'exploit' F/OSS? That's kind of a sick way to phrase it, no? This is one of the largest, kindest shares of modern human knowledge/artwork in history. I'm simply using the least charitable language to describe what I'd like to do (and what AWS has already done) -- there's no need to sugar coat. If someone (normally a group of people) has worked hard to create some software, and released this software as open source, and I take to hosting it for profit, I am exploiting their efforts without a doubt if only in the most literal definition-driven sense. As one would "exploit" natural resources, I would be taking the product of their effort and used it to generate profit. Whether they were kind or noble has nothing to do with it, though of course I agree that F/OSS is one of (if not the) largest and kindest sharing of knowledge in human history. I owe my career to F/OSS and the community that powers it (and of course a few schools and teachers along the way), I haven't forgotten. What I was trying to point out is that it's relatively easy for me to make a decision to give back 10/20/30+% of revenue (never take % shares of profit, see the movie industry) as a bootstrapper, where companies who are VC funded may not be able to make such a choice easily because they have other capitalists to answer to. > Don't _exploit_ the generosity of other people. Use it and contribute back to it. Framing it as something to exploit really emphasizes the need for the GPL. This is very close to my point -- if you don't want this to happen (no matter what someone calls it), pick the appropriate license -- BSSL or a similar license. Do not depend on the kindness of strangers, it's not a good long term strategy -- the GPL was invented to give that ideology teeth and it's been outrageously successful. Sentry, a well known and liked player in the error reporting space does so[0]. People use Sentry, and contribute to it, and love it. People who think picking GPL licenses will offer the same protections are somewhat misguided, the closes you can get is AGPLv3 which to be honest isn't even right, because hosting unmodified versions seemed to be permitted. I call it exploitation because that is what you have to assume that companies (which exist for a very specific reason in just about every economy in the world) will almost certainly skew in the direction of exploitation, they are basically duty-bound to do so. [0]: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE
- fartcannon 6y ago
  I was clearly very wrong about your intent. I like both your position and your reasoning for it. Good luck out there!

danaris 6y ago

Sharks are animals: amoral, without judgement for their behavior. AWS is a company made up of human beings, with the capacity to choose to do good. If they do things that we would consider to be immoral, we can absolutely blame and judge them for that, regardless of whether it's "what they do".

mettamage 6y ago
I wouldn't compare them to sharks either since that puts AWS into a fixed frame that I don't think it always is. However, there has been a perspectives of seeing organizations as a form of AI (I read it on HN somewhere), and if you look at it from that perspective the ethics become bureaucratic which opens a whole can of worms of what that means :)
hardwaresofton 6y ago
> Sharks are animals: amoral, without judgement for their behavior. I was wrong to say that you can't blame Amazon for doing what they do -- what I should have said was that people shouldn't be "surprised". Work yourself into a fit over it if you want, but the next time it happens, you shouldn't be surprised. My point was meant to be that sharks do shark things, and companies that are Amazon's size do things that companies at Amazon's size would do. Both happenings should not illicit much surprise. > AWS is a company made up of human beings, with the capacity to choose to do good. If they do things that we would consider to be immoral, we can absolutely blame and judge them for that, regardless of whether it's "what they do". This is great in theory, but there are such things as shareholders, fiduciary duty, and binding financial covenants. Companies have a capacity to choose to do good, but they have a stronger duty to produce profit for stakeholders. Companies can be ethical, but there is no reason to believe that they will be unless it's written into their bylaws, or they are structured differently from the outset (ex. Mozilla Foundation). Another article hit the front page from 2019 about Google vetoing the power of a privacy-focused W3C working group to prevent technical changes that would hurt privacy. This is another instance -- you can blame and gnash your teeth all you want, but Google is going to do what Google does, and that's offer technological advancement and ease at the cost of privacy (sometimes) if it helps them sell more/more expensive ads.