4 ms·

> AWS of course is the single biggest reason why projects are flocking to more restrictive licenses Don't forget that AWS is one of the biggest reasons so many

by dig1 3y ago

> AWS of course is the single biggest reason why projects are flocking to more restrictive licenses Don't forget that AWS is one of the biggest reasons so many OSS projects became popular. Redis, Mongo, ES, HashiCorp stuff, a complete big data ecosystem, got wider recognition through AWS's offering. Many people have yet to learn about dozens of obscure databases (that have been in development for years) simply because AWS or other big cloud providers have not pushed them. Also, many projects receive a lot of contributions (bug reports, PRs, patches) due to liberal licenses increasing their use and popularity. I'm not particularly eager to contribute to anything with SSPL/BSL/etc-like licenses simply because I don't want to waste my time on something I can't use liberally in the future.

chasontherobot 3y ago
ES was already huge before AWS made everyone think it was an Amazon product
codedokode 3y ago
Redis was popular enough long before clouds. Also, with AGPL-style license Redis will not become less popular. Anyone still will be able to use it as a cache, but not as a free work done by others that you can resell without contributing back.
- aragilar 3y ago
  Raises eyebrows We're already having the discussion of what we should do about redis at work, given it's a cache, and the tooling we use allows for other caching tools, we'll likely switch away from redis fairly quickly...
  - ako 3y ago
    Postgres makes for a pretty decent key value cache in certain situations.
- rascul 3y ago
  > Redis was popular enough long before clouds. Redis is newer than you think. Or the cloud is older.
acdha 3y ago
That’s highly unlike my experience: each of those tools was popular first - the AWS offerings were recognizing widespread customer use. You couldn’t go to a meetup without someone handing out ES or MongoDB stickers by the time AWS decided that was a market worth being in. I do agree there’s some value in wider use but developers have to get paid. If users are paying someone who doesn’t contribute much to the upstream codebase at some point the project is going to founder. I don’t love the change as someone who’s been using open source for decades but the maintainer problem is real and won’t go away without structural changes.
blueelephanttea 3y ago
> got wider recognition through AWS's offering. Other commentators have already pointed out that this is probably not true. But MongoDB relicensed before Amazon could launch a direct hosted offering and it is the biggest of all these projects. It did not want nor did it need Amazon launching a hosted variant.
ako 3y ago
Aws not offering it does indeed make it harder to adopt, especially if you have to have additional billing contracts with an additional business party, have to validate their certifications (soc2, etc), customer data sharing agreements, etc. There’s a difference between developer popularity, and ability to actually use it in commercial product. If AWS provides a commercial alternative out of the box available within existing contracts and certifications, adopting that is low friction.

by dig1 3y ago

chasontherobot 3y ago

ES was already huge before AWS made everyone think it was an Amazon product

codedokode 3y ago

Redis was popular enough long before clouds. Also, with AGPL-style license Redis will not become less popular. Anyone still will be able to use it as a cache, but not as a free work done by others that you can resell without contributing back.

aragilar 3y ago
Raises eyebrows We're already having the discussion of what we should do about redis at work, given it's a cache, and the tooling we use allows for other caching tools, we'll likely switch away from redis fairly quickly...
- ako 3y ago
  Postgres makes for a pretty decent key value cache in certain situations.
rascul 3y ago
> Redis was popular enough long before clouds. Redis is newer than you think. Or the cloud is older.

acdha 3y ago

That’s highly unlike my experience: each of those tools was popular first - the AWS offerings were recognizing widespread customer use. You couldn’t go to a meetup without someone handing out ES or MongoDB stickers by the time AWS decided that was a market worth being in. I do agree there’s some value in wider use but developers have to get paid. If users are paying someone who doesn’t contribute much to the upstream codebase at some point the project is going to founder. I don’t love the change as someone who’s been using open source for decades but the maintainer problem is real and won’t go away without structural changes.

blueelephanttea 3y ago

> got wider recognition through AWS's offering. Other commentators have already pointed out that this is probably not true. But MongoDB relicensed before Amazon could launch a direct hosted offering and it is the biggest of all these projects. It did not want nor did it need Amazon launching a hosted variant.

ako 3y ago

Aws not offering it does indeed make it harder to adopt, especially if you have to have additional billing contracts with an additional business party, have to validate their certifications (soc2, etc), customer data sharing agreements, etc. There’s a difference between developer popularity, and ability to actually use it in commercial product. If AWS provides a commercial alternative out of the box available within existing contracts and certifications, adopting that is low friction.