5 ms·

I wish that same drive would come to their devices division which do the absolutely bear minimum not to be sued for GPL Violation when they use GPL code on thei

I wish that same drive would come to their devices division which do the absolutely bear minimum not to be sued for GPL Violation when they use GPL code on their Fire Devices Edit: Also doesn't AWS have a history of Microsoft style EEE, where they embrace an open source project, make a service from it, extend that service in a non-open way and then push people to use their extended non-open service instead of improving upstream? Hasn't this resulted in a number of projects changing their licensing to prevent it?

smatija 4y ago
I think ElasticSearch license change was biggest such change, as was discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657
- pydry 4y ago
  Their "obsession" with contributing isnt really in evidence on their fork: https://camo.githubusercontent.com/71f7e9147092c7d4b08df18da10b894b728b78e77e5e936a6427a7803b2865a0/68747470733a2f2f63646e2e747467746d656469612e636f6d2f726d732f6f6e6c696e65696d616765732f636c6f7564636f6d707574696e672d6769746875625f636f64655f636f6d6d6974732d662e706e67 https://camo.githubusercontent.com/71f7e9147092c7d4b08df18da... Worth bearing in mind that the only reason fork even exists was so that they didnt have to pay Elastic a cut when selling hosted ElasticSearch. If they cared about open source they could start by not undermining the business models of companies that do more than just pretend to support it.
  - TravelPiglet 4y ago
    Having to pay for hosting an open source product? Isn’t Amazon doing what they should in this case where a company tries to block any competition.
    - pydry 4y ago
      No. Amazon was abusing their enormous market power to squeeze the company that made this software out of the market of hosting it. (Not to mention lying about "partnering" with them) If allowed to continue this would kill the project. If only Amazon can monetize it, it doesnt get developed. The open source project then dies. Amazon is no more doing the right thing here than they were when they destroyed diapers.com with a strategy of sustained predatory pricing. The fact that they want a pat on the back for being "pro open source" now after pulling this kind of crap is just icing on the cake.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    They forked it when the upstream project switched to using a non-open-source license. This is a reasonable thing to do if your goal is to run FOSS and if you have the resources to maintain it. Notably, you could build GPL software on top of OpenSearch. You could not do so on top of ElasticSearch at the moment.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      switched to a non-open source licensing because AWS as leeching off the project, it was completely reasonable for ElesticSearch to change their licensing in the face of what AWS was going which while legal was IMO unethical
    - justinclift 4y ago
      Wasn't that license change after AWS started playing funny buggers with Elastic? So, Elastic then chose to change their license to try and counter it.
      - ryukafalz 4y ago
        By "playing funny buggers" do you mean "running the code for their customers"? The code whose license said this? > Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
        justinclift 4y ago
        So, I take it you're familiar with the history between those two then, and you're ignoring it for some reason? ;)
    - pydry 4y ago
      Amazon referring to it as "not open source" is a bit like Russia calling Crimea "Russian". This redefinition of open source is intended as a political statement - fighting against open source with restrictions. Especially so, it seems, if those restrictions promote the growth of open source. Elastic changed to a license that is completely open except insofar as it blocked Amazon from profiting from it. >Notably, you could build GPL software on top of OpenSearch. You could not do so on top of ElasticSearch. Notably you can't build MIT software based on GPL software either. This is 100% about MIT being a weak open source license with few restrictions and GPL being a strong open source license with restrictions. Not coincidentally the very-much-also-open-source-license GPL also had a history of infuriating big tech for exactly the same reason - they hate restrictions put in place designed to help open source flourish. E.g. Here's Google getting publicly grumpy about the AGPL: https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/ https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source...
- detaro 4y ago
  Not sure I'd count that as "EEE"? I guess in a way you could see "We can't compete with AWS at running our own software" as AWS "extending" it, but I don't think it is quite that?
xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
> do the absolutely bear minimum not to be sued for GPL Violation Could you expand on what you mean? Are they violating the GPL? What does it mean to do the bare minimum but not violate the GPL? It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. If you want someone to do something, put it in the text of the license.
- cma 4y ago
  If you lower expectations to literal legal text only, then they don't even have the "it would be bad for PR and developer relations not to do it" incentive.
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  They drop a zip file with their open source code somewhere on the website at some point, but don't try to upstream patches, work with Linux kernel people in public, or provide a public git history To be fair, it's a tough sell to tell your management chain that you have to spend a week every month arguing and refactoring code just to make some internet people happy about it
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > it's a tough sell to tell your management chain ... Sounds like a weird management chain then. Generally I've seen the conversation go along the lines of "we should 'contribute' these changes back, so the upstream people can check them over for bugs, and we don't have to write this stuff again for the next product".
    - Firmwarrior 4y ago
      ah, I dunno if anyone in the linux community is really going to be going out of their way to fix MediaTek's shitty code for free as a favor to Amazon
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. This is completely false as they (amazon) want to market themselves has developer friendly and supportative of open source Their actions however say something completely different. Further Loads of companies and organizations go beyond the legally required bare minimum in all kinds of things not just open source. You have a completely warped view of human interactions if you want to boil all humanity, and all interactions to just what is "legally required of us"
hikawaii 4y ago
[dead]
marcosdumay 4y ago
> Also doesn't AWS have a history of Microsoft style EEE AFAIK (but I'm far from knowing about all examples), no, they have a history of taking open-source software, forking it out of the control of the creators, and extending it there without bothering to sync the changes back. It is hostile to people that want to gain anything from their software, but it is not against the license.
- aprilnya 4y ago
  I’m pretty sure that is EEE

smatija 4y ago

I think ElasticSearch license change was biggest such change, as was discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657

pydry 4y ago
Their "obsession" with contributing isnt really in evidence on their fork: https://camo.githubusercontent.com/71f7e9147092c7d4b08df18da10b894b728b78e77e5e936a6427a7803b2865a0/68747470733a2f2f63646e2e747467746d656469612e636f6d2f726d732f6f6e6c696e65696d616765732f636c6f7564636f6d707574696e672d6769746875625f636f64655f636f6d6d6974732d662e706e67 https://camo.githubusercontent.com/71f7e9147092c7d4b08df18da... Worth bearing in mind that the only reason fork even exists was so that they didnt have to pay Elastic a cut when selling hosted ElasticSearch. If they cared about open source they could start by not undermining the business models of companies that do more than just pretend to support it.
- TravelPiglet 4y ago
  Having to pay for hosting an open source product? Isn’t Amazon doing what they should in this case where a company tries to block any competition.
  - pydry 4y ago
    No. Amazon was abusing their enormous market power to squeeze the company that made this software out of the market of hosting it. (Not to mention lying about "partnering" with them) If allowed to continue this would kill the project. If only Amazon can monetize it, it doesnt get developed. The open source project then dies. Amazon is no more doing the right thing here than they were when they destroyed diapers.com with a strategy of sustained predatory pricing. The fact that they want a pat on the back for being "pro open source" now after pulling this kind of crap is just icing on the cake.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  They forked it when the upstream project switched to using a non-open-source license. This is a reasonable thing to do if your goal is to run FOSS and if you have the resources to maintain it. Notably, you could build GPL software on top of OpenSearch. You could not do so on top of ElasticSearch at the moment.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    switched to a non-open source licensing because AWS as leeching off the project, it was completely reasonable for ElesticSearch to change their licensing in the face of what AWS was going which while legal was IMO unethical
  - justinclift 4y ago
    Wasn't that license change after AWS started playing funny buggers with Elastic? So, Elastic then chose to change their license to try and counter it.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      By "playing funny buggers" do you mean "running the code for their customers"? The code whose license said this? > Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
      - justinclift 4y ago
        So, I take it you're familiar with the history between those two then, and you're ignoring it for some reason? ;)
  - pydry 4y ago
    Amazon referring to it as "not open source" is a bit like Russia calling Crimea "Russian". This redefinition of open source is intended as a political statement - fighting against open source with restrictions. Especially so, it seems, if those restrictions promote the growth of open source. Elastic changed to a license that is completely open except insofar as it blocked Amazon from profiting from it. >Notably, you could build GPL software on top of OpenSearch. You could not do so on top of ElasticSearch. Notably you can't build MIT software based on GPL software either. This is 100% about MIT being a weak open source license with few restrictions and GPL being a strong open source license with restrictions. Not coincidentally the very-much-also-open-source-license GPL also had a history of infuriating big tech for exactly the same reason - they hate restrictions put in place designed to help open source flourish. E.g. Here's Google getting publicly grumpy about the AGPL: https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/ https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source...
detaro 4y ago
Not sure I'd count that as "EEE"? I guess in a way you could see "We can't compete with AWS at running our own software" as AWS "extending" it, but I don't think it is quite that?

xyzzy_plugh 4y ago

> do the absolutely bear minimum not to be sued for GPL Violation Could you expand on what you mean? Are they violating the GPL? What does it mean to do the bare minimum but not violate the GPL? It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. If you want someone to do something, put it in the text of the license.

cma 4y ago
If you lower expectations to literal legal text only, then they don't even have the "it would be bad for PR and developer relations not to do it" incentive.
Firmwarrior 4y ago
They drop a zip file with their open source code somewhere on the website at some point, but don't try to upstream patches, work with Linux kernel people in public, or provide a public git history To be fair, it's a tough sell to tell your management chain that you have to spend a week every month arguing and refactoring code just to make some internet people happy about it
- justinclift 4y ago
  > it's a tough sell to tell your management chain ... Sounds like a weird management chain then. Generally I've seen the conversation go along the lines of "we should 'contribute' these changes back, so the upstream people can check them over for bugs, and we don't have to write this stuff again for the next product".
  - Firmwarrior 4y ago
    ah, I dunno if anyone in the linux community is really going to be going out of their way to fix MediaTek's shitty code for free as a favor to Amazon
phpisthebest 4y ago
>>It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. This is completely false as they (amazon) want to market themselves has developer friendly and supportative of open source Their actions however say something completely different. Further Loads of companies and organizations go beyond the legally required bare minimum in all kinds of things not just open source. You have a completely warped view of human interactions if you want to boil all humanity, and all interactions to just what is "legally required of us"

hikawaii 4y ago

[dead]

marcosdumay 4y ago

> Also doesn't AWS have a history of Microsoft style EEE AFAIK (but I'm far from knowing about all examples), no, they have a history of taking open-source software, forking it out of the control of the creators, and extending it there without bothering to sync the changes back. It is hostile to people that want to gain anything from their software, but it is not against the license.

aprilnya 4y ago
I’m pretty sure that is EEE