6 ms·

Carmack has net worth of $50 million. Him saying "exploitation by big tech is not a problem, really" is very different than normal person saying it - his well b

by glogla 5y ago

Carmack has net worth of $50 million. Him saying "exploitation by big tech is not a problem, really" is very different than normal person saying it - his well being is not on the line and never will be. Go ask authors of ElasticSearch or Airflow or whatever the new thing that AWS steals will be.

javagram 5y ago
ElasticSearch was GPL (AGPL). It didn’t help them because what their business model needed was not just sharing back changes to source code but to actually disincentivize competition in the space of providing cloud SaaS for the product. Hence why they and mongodb switched to a shared source license that is not Free software.
- nopzor 5y ago
  elasticsearch wasn't ever GPL or AGPL to my knowledge. it was Apache licensed, and then they switched to SSPL.
  - javagram 5y ago
    Yes, sorry I confused it with mongodb.
defaultname 5y ago
The argument of big tech "exploiting" or stealing has always rang untrue to me. If Microsoft took the source code to Nano and made a Nano+ that reads word files or something, closed-source, selling it for big bucks, etc, the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going to pay if the features are different enough to merit the cost over the freely available version. Similarly, if Amazon has a product based on an open source product, what they charge can only possibly be for the values that they've brought to it. They haven't stolen anything. A lot of GPL advocacy seems to be based in sour grapes and it's offputting.
- VectorLock 5y ago
  >the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going to pay if the features are different enough to merit the cost over the freely available version I think its interesting that you described exactly the big problem the GPL was supposed to solve. The entire intention is to not allow another party to take the work you've done and build a minor increase in value and then piggy backing on all the value you've created. Now you've removed contributions that could have made the original project better - most of the intention of open source is to make something that others can contribute too.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    I understand the intent of the GPL, and the reasoning behind its creation. I'm not arguing about that. It isn't accidental that I am arguing around that point. I'm talking specifically about the notion of people making money off of open source -- whether BSD, GPL, etc. You cannot possibly make a penny off of what is freely and openly available. It's economic market value is $0.00. It's human value is considerable, but again the market value is $0. This is lost on all of these sour grapes "wah, they're stealing" arguments.
    - VectorLock 5y ago
      Thats where the "sour grapes" come from. When another person takes a valuable thing that someone else made and turns it into monetary gain they feel like that is "stealing." It is less obvious because its not as directly and easily measurable when a direct dollar sign is put on a product. The same feeling happens when big tech builds huge profit machines using something a person made and gave away as a cog without contributing back. Or when AWS takes something like Elasticsearch and hosts it for profit - Elastic co. sure thought they were stealing. You call it sour grapes and then describe how someone is stealing something of value. Was Elastic's response to AWS also sour grapes?
      - 5y ago
nonameiguess 5y ago
Elastic IPO'd at $250 million and currently has a market cap near $8 billion. It's pretty hard to believe the founders didn't make out as well as John Carmack. If the company goes under tomorrow, they can almost certainly still line their graves one day with Bentleys and Leer jets if they so desire.

by glogla 5y ago

javagram 5y ago

ElasticSearch was GPL (AGPL). It didn’t help them because what their business model needed was not just sharing back changes to source code but to actually disincentivize competition in the space of providing cloud SaaS for the product. Hence why they and mongodb switched to a shared source license that is not Free software.

nopzor 5y ago
elasticsearch wasn't ever GPL or AGPL to my knowledge. it was Apache licensed, and then they switched to SSPL.
- javagram 5y ago
  Yes, sorry I confused it with mongodb.

defaultname 5y ago

The argument of big tech "exploiting" or stealing has always rang untrue to me. If Microsoft took the source code to Nano and made a Nano+ that reads word files or something, closed-source, selling it for big bucks, etc, the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going to pay if the features are different enough to merit the cost over the freely available version. Similarly, if Amazon has a product based on an open source product, what they charge can only possibly be for the values that they've brought to it. They haven't stolen anything. A lot of GPL advocacy seems to be based in sour grapes and it's offputting.

VectorLock 5y ago
>the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going to pay if the features are different enough to merit the cost over the freely available version I think its interesting that you described exactly the big problem the GPL was supposed to solve. The entire intention is to not allow another party to take the work you've done and build a minor increase in value and then piggy backing on all the value you've created. Now you've removed contributions that could have made the original project better - most of the intention of open source is to make something that others can contribute too.
- defaultname 5y ago
  I understand the intent of the GPL, and the reasoning behind its creation. I'm not arguing about that. It isn't accidental that I am arguing around that point. I'm talking specifically about the notion of people making money off of open source -- whether BSD, GPL, etc. You cannot possibly make a penny off of what is freely and openly available. It's economic market value is $0.00. It's human value is considerable, but again the market value is $0. This is lost on all of these sour grapes "wah, they're stealing" arguments.
  - VectorLock 5y ago
    Thats where the "sour grapes" come from. When another person takes a valuable thing that someone else made and turns it into monetary gain they feel like that is "stealing." It is less obvious because its not as directly and easily measurable when a direct dollar sign is put on a product. The same feeling happens when big tech builds huge profit machines using something a person made and gave away as a cog without contributing back. Or when AWS takes something like Elasticsearch and hosts it for profit - Elastic co. sure thought they were stealing. You call it sour grapes and then describe how someone is stealing something of value. Was Elastic's response to AWS also sour grapes?
    - 5y ago

nonameiguess 5y ago

Elastic IPO'd at $250 million and currently has a market cap near $8 billion. It's pretty hard to believe the founders didn't make out as well as John Carmack. If the company goes under tomorrow, they can almost certainly still line their graves one day with Bentleys and Leer jets if they so desire.