3 ms·

I dislike the precedent that AWS/OpenSearch sets/reinforces. It’s basically tacit approval that “AWS should be allowed to swing in and destroy your business an

I dislike the precedent that AWS/OpenSearch sets/reinforces. It’s basically tacit approval that “AWS should be allowed to swing in and destroy your business and you can and should do nothing in response”, it lets AWS (or anyone else who wants to try this) continue with this kind of parasitic behaviour.

Spivak 5y ago
Just don’t make your software FOSS. Like you reap what you sow when you release your software as an open source project as a growth hack but when you realize you can’t make money giving your product and then selling hosting when it isn’t your core competency. Like I can’t be mad at AWS for actually keeping ES alive as a community project for the benefit of the people who actually use and deploy it instead of some freemium company product where shit like security is a paid proprietary add-on.
rmbyrro 5y ago
It doesn't have to destroy your business. There are other ways to make money off FOSS other than competing with cloud providers. Elastic could provide consulting, support, premium tools with proprietary licenses...
throw_m239339 5y ago
> It’s basically tacit approval that “AWS should be allowed to swing in and destroy your business and you can and should do nothing in response”, it lets AWS (or anyone else who wants to try this) continue with this kind of parasitic behaviour. It's up to open source authors to protect themselves and stop using permissive licenses. There will certainly be a shift away from MIT and co in the future.
- Spivak 5y ago
  There aren't really restrictive open source licenses since any restriction you would actually want for business protection makes it not Open Source. I have zero problem with companies making proprietary software and we should call it as such. If the way your business makes money is by selling or hosting your software then, ya know, not a good fit for OSS -- totally fine. If you develop a piece of software because it solves a problem for you or your business and you think it might help others and you want community contributions then OSS is for you.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    > There aren't really restrictive open source licenses since any restriction you would actually want for business protection makes it not Open Source. Technically true, practically false; AGPL is 100% FOSS and FAANG won't touch it.
    - throw_m239339 5y ago
      > Technically true, practically false; AGPL is 100% FOSS and FAANG won't touch it. Just offer a DUAL FOSS and commercial license. Who cares what FAANG use, FAANG have stopped significantly contributing back to open source.
    - kbumsik 5y ago
      Nope, AGPL is already compromised by FAANG too. See how Mongodb switched from AGPL to SSPL https://lwn.net/Articles/768670/ https://lwn.net/Articles/768670/

Spivak 5y ago

Just don’t make your software FOSS. Like you reap what you sow when you release your software as an open source project as a growth hack but when you realize you can’t make money giving your product and then selling hosting when it isn’t your core competency. Like I can’t be mad at AWS for actually keeping ES alive as a community project for the benefit of the people who actually use and deploy it instead of some freemium company product where shit like security is a paid proprietary add-on.

rmbyrro 5y ago

It doesn't have to destroy your business. There are other ways to make money off FOSS other than competing with cloud providers. Elastic could provide consulting, support, premium tools with proprietary licenses...

throw_m239339 5y ago

> It’s basically tacit approval that “AWS should be allowed to swing in and destroy your business and you can and should do nothing in response”, it lets AWS (or anyone else who wants to try this) continue with this kind of parasitic behaviour. It's up to open source authors to protect themselves and stop using permissive licenses. There will certainly be a shift away from MIT and co in the future.

Spivak 5y ago
There aren't really restrictive open source licenses since any restriction you would actually want for business protection makes it not Open Source. I have zero problem with companies making proprietary software and we should call it as such. If the way your business makes money is by selling or hosting your software then, ya know, not a good fit for OSS -- totally fine. If you develop a piece of software because it solves a problem for you or your business and you think it might help others and you want community contributions then OSS is for you.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  > There aren't really restrictive open source licenses since any restriction you would actually want for business protection makes it not Open Source. Technically true, practically false; AGPL is 100% FOSS and FAANG won't touch it.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > Technically true, practically false; AGPL is 100% FOSS and FAANG won't touch it. Just offer a DUAL FOSS and commercial license. Who cares what FAANG use, FAANG have stopped significantly contributing back to open source.
  - kbumsik 5y ago
    Nope, AGPL is already compromised by FAANG too. See how Mongodb switched from AGPL to SSPL https://lwn.net/Articles/768670/ https://lwn.net/Articles/768670/