4 ms·

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. My concern is that a large enterprise like Amazon jumps in and in a few months I see exactly the scenario you describe.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. My concern is that a large enterprise like Amazon jumps in and in a few months I see exactly the scenario you describe. I'll add a contributor agreement right away and it seems a dual license is the way.

mooreds 4y ago
I wrote a blog post about this year ago that might be a fun read for you: https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/3438 https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/3438 I don't think it'd be a few months, unless your software is fantastically, wildly, mind-blowingly successful (or very very very unique). But if you are massively successful in a few years and the license is right, the cloud providers will probably come for you.
- kamrani 4y ago
  Thanks it's a good read.
bigiain 4y ago
If you're concerned about Amazon et al, you probably want to be _super_ careful right now, and dual license is probably that _last_ thing you want. The people fighting off Amazon are experimenting with non OSI approved licenses which in OSI's terms are not "open source". Elastic and Mongo's "Server Side Public License" and Redis's "Redis Source Available License" were created to stop the hyper cloud PaaS/IaaS companies from "jumping in" without being required to contribute back in some way. The additional restrictions these licenses place make them incompatible with OSI's definition of "open source". If you release your software with a permissive or dual license (with a permissive option), then Amazon could just fork from that and go ahead and do what they want with your project under those permissive terms, like they do with ElasticSearch - AWS's ElasticSearch is a fork of the last old (7.10) version of ElasticSearch Apache 2.0 license instead of the latest (8.1,3) version of ElasticSearch.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  IANAIPL but this has always seemed strange to me. Copying and creating derivative works are separate from use, especially in light of 17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1). So rather than carve out a huge exception to the conditions on creating derivative works, and then trying to re-implement some of those conditions by placing conditions on use... why not just pare down the exceptions wrt derivative works? Less abstractly: AGPL says you only have to license modifications if you distribute derivative works to the public, but you also have conditions on use. That makes it non-free. Why not simply say you have to license all modifications if you make a derivative work, unless the derivative is solely for personal/internal use without control or interaction by individuals outside your household or organization? It seems to me that would achieve effectively the same end, but in a more straightforward manner and by hinging the mechanics on derivative-making rather than on use.
- kamrani 4y ago
  I think I have to use something exactly like the license Sentry is using then. It's just one license and it should be fine I guess if it had protected them. Also, I'm not concerned about Amazon exactly but it can be any other entity with enough resources to offer my product to their existing user base and definitely with massive marketing budget, etc.
pabs3 4y ago
If your software is valuable enough, Amazon will just reimplement it from scratch. Often Amazon entering the market for your software will grow the size of the market, taking most of the growth for themselves, but also increasing the amount of customers you get.
- kamrani 4y ago
  Not always really. Code commit/build/deploy still are some of the worst products in AWS and they're far behind Gitlab which is OSS. Btw, I'm not really concerned about Amazon particularly, it's a general question about someone taking advantage of few years of work without putting in any effort.

mooreds 4y ago

I wrote a blog post about this year ago that might be a fun read for you: https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/3438 https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/3438 I don't think it'd be a few months, unless your software is fantastically, wildly, mind-blowingly successful (or very very very unique). But if you are massively successful in a few years and the license is right, the cloud providers will probably come for you.

kamrani 4y ago
Thanks it's a good read.

bigiain 4y ago

If you're concerned about Amazon et al, you probably want to be _super_ careful right now, and dual license is probably that _last_ thing you want. The people fighting off Amazon are experimenting with non OSI approved licenses which in OSI's terms are not "open source". Elastic and Mongo's "Server Side Public License" and Redis's "Redis Source Available License" were created to stop the hyper cloud PaaS/IaaS companies from "jumping in" without being required to contribute back in some way. The additional restrictions these licenses place make them incompatible with OSI's definition of "open source". If you release your software with a permissive or dual license (with a permissive option), then Amazon could just fork from that and go ahead and do what they want with your project under those permissive terms, like they do with ElasticSearch - AWS's ElasticSearch is a fork of the last old (7.10) version of ElasticSearch Apache 2.0 license instead of the latest (8.1,3) version of ElasticSearch.

torstenvl 4y ago
IANAIPL but this has always seemed strange to me. Copying and creating derivative works are separate from use, especially in light of 17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1). So rather than carve out a huge exception to the conditions on creating derivative works, and then trying to re-implement some of those conditions by placing conditions on use... why not just pare down the exceptions wrt derivative works? Less abstractly: AGPL says you only have to license modifications if you distribute derivative works to the public, but you also have conditions on use. That makes it non-free. Why not simply say you have to license all modifications if you make a derivative work, unless the derivative is solely for personal/internal use without control or interaction by individuals outside your household or organization? It seems to me that would achieve effectively the same end, but in a more straightforward manner and by hinging the mechanics on derivative-making rather than on use.
kamrani 4y ago
I think I have to use something exactly like the license Sentry is using then. It's just one license and it should be fine I guess if it had protected them. Also, I'm not concerned about Amazon exactly but it can be any other entity with enough resources to offer my product to their existing user base and definitely with massive marketing budget, etc.

pabs3 4y ago

If your software is valuable enough, Amazon will just reimplement it from scratch. Often Amazon entering the market for your software will grow the size of the market, taking most of the growth for themselves, but also increasing the amount of customers you get.

kamrani 4y ago
Not always really. Code commit/build/deploy still are some of the worst products in AWS and they're far behind Gitlab which is OSS. Btw, I'm not really concerned about Amazon particularly, it's a general question about someone taking advantage of few years of work without putting in any effort.