3 ms·
> 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 (o
by 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 agoThere 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 agoNope, 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/