4 ms·

> It’s very rude of you to call someone a token hire when they’re high up in the contributors list (#7 all time). I've called AWS's hiring of a single develope

by mythz 3y ago

> It’s very rude of you to call someone a token hire when they’re high up in the contributors list (#7 all time). I've called AWS's hiring of a single developer a token hire that they then go on to write flowery PR posts about to camouflage their predatory relationship with OSS vendors. For concrete numbers they contributed 165/12111 commits for a total of a 1.36% of the commits. Whilst that qualifies as a valuable contribution to any project, it's also dwarfed by the 350M investment in Redis Labs and doesn't absolve AWS from being a called a "leacher" by helping themselves to the majority of the profits whilst contributing relatively nothing back.

nindalf 3y ago
> dwarfed by the 350M investment in Redis Labs It’s funny that you would use commits to quantify investment from AWS, but you’d use $ to buy shares in future profits to quantify investment from redis labs. Why not use the same yardstick for both? Either way, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. Everyone who put in effort into redis did it knowing the license. There’s nothing wrong in relicensing future commits. There’s nothing wrong with forking. There’s nothing wrong in using whichever fork works better for you. You’re insisting up and down that AWS and others were leeching because they didn’t own the copyright to redis. I’ve never heard this interpretation of OSS before, but sure maybe you’re right. But we’ll see which fork comes out on top a year from now.
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
> camouflage their predatory relationship with OSS vendors If you don't want others to monetize your work, don't license it under a license permitting them exactly that.
- mythz 3y ago
  hence the relicensing
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    It’s hard to argue that a use permitted by the original license is „predatory”.
    - evanelias 3y ago
      That's fair in isolation, but one can justifiably argue that a repeated pattern of behavior is clearly predatory. Specifically: have the major cloud providers ever created a successful FOSS database, cache, or fulltext search index project from the ground up? By this I mean, a FOSS project with its own protocol, own community from scratch, not a fork or a re-implementation or based on another FOSS project, nor a late-stage company acquisition. I'm struggling to think of even a single example. Even for broader infrastructure (not just db/cache/search), there's few examples, only Kubernetes comes to mind rapidly. If the cloud providers are widely practicing "FOSS for thee but not for me" with respect to creation of new infrastructure projects, that's predatory and unsustainable.
      - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
        > That's fair in isolation, but one can justifiably argue that a repeated pattern of behavior is clearly predatory. Yes, but there’s another explanation. Repeating the same mistake countless times and expecting a different outcome is naivety.
        evanelias 3y ago
        To repeat a comment by another user upthread: hence the relicensing. I suppose I’m not understanding the point of your position. Software authors cannot fix a licensing mistake by changing the past, but they can use a different license moving forwards.
      - JackSlateur 3y ago
        Have any major software company ever created a successful software from the ground up ? No, they all base their work on some language ! They are predatory ! Wait, does any language team ever created a successful implementation from the ground up ? No, they all base their work on some hardware people ! They are predatory ! Wait, does any hardware manufacturers ever created a successful product from the ground up ? No, they all base their work of some software ! They are predatory !

by mythz 3y ago

nindalf 3y ago

> dwarfed by the 350M investment in Redis Labs It’s funny that you would use commits to quantify investment from AWS, but you’d use $ to buy shares in future profits to quantify investment from redis labs. Why not use the same yardstick for both? Either way, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. Everyone who put in effort into redis did it knowing the license. There’s nothing wrong in relicensing future commits. There’s nothing wrong with forking. There’s nothing wrong in using whichever fork works better for you. You’re insisting up and down that AWS and others were leeching because they didn’t own the copyright to redis. I’ve never heard this interpretation of OSS before, but sure maybe you’re right. But we’ll see which fork comes out on top a year from now.

rad_gruchalski 3y ago

> camouflage their predatory relationship with OSS vendors If you don't want others to monetize your work, don't license it under a license permitting them exactly that.

mythz 3y ago
hence the relicensing
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  It’s hard to argue that a use permitted by the original license is „predatory”.
  - evanelias 3y ago
    That's fair in isolation, but one can justifiably argue that a repeated pattern of behavior is clearly predatory. Specifically: have the major cloud providers ever created a successful FOSS database, cache, or fulltext search index project from the ground up? By this I mean, a FOSS project with its own protocol, own community from scratch, not a fork or a re-implementation or based on another FOSS project, nor a late-stage company acquisition. I'm struggling to think of even a single example. Even for broader infrastructure (not just db/cache/search), there's few examples, only Kubernetes comes to mind rapidly. If the cloud providers are widely practicing "FOSS for thee but not for me" with respect to creation of new infrastructure projects, that's predatory and unsustainable.
    - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
      > That's fair in isolation, but one can justifiably argue that a repeated pattern of behavior is clearly predatory. Yes, but there’s another explanation. Repeating the same mistake countless times and expecting a different outcome is naivety.
      - evanelias 3y ago
        To repeat a comment by another user upthread: hence the relicensing. I suppose I’m not understanding the point of your position. Software authors cannot fix a licensing mistake by changing the past, but they can use a different license moving forwards.
    - JackSlateur 3y ago
      Have any major software company ever created a successful software from the ground up ? No, they all base their work on some language ! They are predatory ! Wait, does any language team ever created a successful implementation from the ground up ? No, they all base their work on some hardware people ! They are predatory ! Wait, does any hardware manufacturers ever created a successful product from the ground up ? No, they all base their work of some software ! They are predatory !