4 ms·
AWS leeches as much as Garantia Data no?
by vasco 3y ago
AWS leeches as much as Garantia Data no?
- mirekrusin 3y agoIf you own copyrights you’re not the leech.
- Thorrez 3y agoWho owns the copyrights? According to the article, since 7.0.0, 24.8% of commits are from Tencent, 19.5% from Redis, 6.7% from Alibaba, 5.2% from Huawei, 5.2% from Amazon.
- firstSpeaker 3y agoI wonder if there is a qualitative analysis of the commits. Aka, it changed a line of comment vs it introduced a new feature or refactored and increased long term viability, etc.
- mirekrusin 3y agoI think you're right. Some projects require signing copyright transfer before making commits (legal document claiming that you are a) copyright holder and b) you transfer those rights to them ie CLA [0]) so single entity holds whole copyrights. They usually have a GHA that checks it when proposing PRs. It doesn't look like redis has any of this. So they run RedisLabs purely on trademark + admin rights on GH on redis/redis. If that's the case then they also cannot legally change licence of code that's already there because they're not sole copyright holders of that code. ps. as a side note that's why ie. SQLite doesn't allow external contributions at all, even though their code is Public Domain – because they can legally claim full copyright/authorship. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement
- vasco 3y agoIf you own the copyrights you had money to spend at some point. Other than that unless you are one of the contributors you are leeching, just different flavors of leeching.
- exe34 3y agoIs buying the same as leaching now? Words really do get diluted to the point of meaningless...
- gkbrk 3y agoIt is if the thing they bought had contributions from many other people but pretty much all of them got nothing for it.
- ufocia 3y agoWe don't know what they got. Perhaps some of them were paid to create the contributions. And, in any case, that's OK. The contributors knew or should have known the impact of the license. They could've picked a more restrictive/free license, depending on your point of view. I guess they can still revoke the license. They have not given up their copyrights and the license is arguably not irrevocable.
- exe34 3y agoI'm sure their lawyers will be looking into it, you probably don't need to be concerned!
- vasco 3y agoHow does buying a copyright to a name, literally just being able to call it "Redis" equate to purchasing the code contributions that individual contributors make? They bought the rights to the name, not the project, the project was open-source until the license change and belongs to society as a whole.
- mythz 3y agoAWS are the largest leeches of OSS, syphoning off most the profits and contribute relatively nothing back towards the OSS projects they rent seek from. The "Free for all except mega cloud corps" license changes are to disrupt this status quo which currently sees the mega cloud corps with impenetrable moats from capturing most of the value of OSS products others spend their resources into building, AWS are then able to use their war chest profits to out resource, and out compete them, using their own code-bases against them. It's unfortunate organizations need to resort to relicensing stop this predatory behavior, but its clear in AWSs 20+ year history they're not going to change their behavior on their own.
- ricardobeat 3y agoExcept Redis was never meant to be “owned” by this company. They are both predatory.
- ufocia 3y agoIt is not owned by the company. You are free to create your own fork of the code with all the attendant benefits, including monetization, if applicable.
- tristan957 3y agoOnly one company is allowed to offer it as a service.
- objektif 3y agoI think you are right about AWS leeching OSS.