6 ms·

This keeps happening: 1. People put a lot of work into building databases. The license choice is OSS / FOSS. 2. Some people in the community (original authors

This keeps happening: 1. People put a lot of work into building databases. The license choice is OSS / FOSS. 2. Some people in the community (original authors, community leads) make a company around the database and continue developing it for years on end. They sometimes raise venture capital to expand the business. 3. Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay. 4. The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee. 5. Amazon / Google / Microsoft fork the database. The community revolts. Sometimes the people revolting are employees of the hyperscalers, other times these are just FOSS fans that hate "source available" licenses or relicensing. 6. Database company is forced to walk back the changes. Still no revenue. --- The solution is clear: start your new database with an "equitable source / source available" license from day one. Nobody will complain about a relicense since your license will handle the hyperscalers right off the bat. Basically your license needs one of a few things if you want to prevent Amazon from walking off with your money: - A hyperscaler clause such that any managed offering has to (1) be fully open source, (2) has to pay a fee, or (3) is prevented outright. - A MAU / ARR clause such that hyperscalers are in the blast radius. Note that this also hits your customers.

blibble 2y ago
the problem is the definition of Open Source is controlled by the Open Source Initiative, which has been captured by the hyperscalers which is sort of funny because the term "Open Source" was itself coined to make it possible for people to seek funding to build companies based on the (crazy?) idea of producing software, then giving away its source code 20 years later, the structure of the industry has now changed, and now "Open Source" exists to feed Amazon, Microsoft and Google if it's not possible to alter the definition to include licenses that include terms that allow sustainable value creation for businesses other than the hyperscalers, then the term is no longer fit for purpose, and we need a new one "Fair Software"?
- echelon 2y ago
  > "Fair Software"? That's the term most frequently used! I've seen a number of different efforts start to coalesce around this. https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/ This was also a really nice license: https://defold.com/license/ https://defold.com/license/ We need licenses like these to combat Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. "Open Source" is their grift now.
- lolinder 2y ago
  It's really not though. The OSI quickly loses credibility when they try to push a definition that the community doesn't like (see the Open Source AI kerfuffle). Both the OSI and the FSF are agreed that Source Available with bans on specific use cases is not FOSS. When you've got freaking Richard Stallman opposing you you really have to do better than just scream "corporate capture". Engage with his idea of Freedom, don't set up straw men.
  - blibble 2y ago
    the OSI and the FSF agree, for different reasons > Both the OSI and the FSF are agreed that Source Available with bans on specific use cases is not FOSS. well... yes, because they decide the definition of the terms > When you've got freaking Richard Stallman opposing you you really have to do better than just scream "corporate capture". Engage with his idea of Freedom, don't set up straw men. Stallman has a very particular view of Freedom (itself a multifaceted term) and he rather famously completely rejects the term "Open Source" the situation we're finding ourselves in is one where three increasingly malevolent entities control and capture 100% of the value generated by writing and selling software with source code if you're an employee of these entities, great for you for the rest of us, this is a bad situation to be in and certainly not one that could produce another Red Hat
    - mcny 2y ago
      The AGPLv3 or later is both free and open source and should be the de facto license of choice in my opinion for mass adoption.
  - 2y ago
lolinder 2y ago
> The solution is clear: start your new database with an "equitable source / source available" license from day one. Nobody will complain about a relicense since your license will handle the hyperscalers right off the bat. Yes, this would be the honest thing to do, but people don't do it because using a non-FOSS license loses you adoption. The step you're missing in your little timeline is that the only reason the project takes off at all and becomes big enough that anyone is making money off of it is because it's Open Source. Proprietary databases, programming languages, and similar have lost big time and that's not changing any time soon. So what's really happening is that these FOSS companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to release code for free so that other devs will use it and then make money from the project while somehow banning other companies from also making money off it.
- mulmen 2y ago
  What's missing is why open source won. It's impossible to be rug pulled. If the maintainers (this is a carefully chosen word) attempt a rug-pull you can just Elastic or Redis them. If the product is closed this is impossible and you're at the mercy of whoever you built on. Open Source is the ultimate right to repair. Everything is working as intended.
  - KingMob 2y ago
    > Everything is working as intended. If this true, than we need something else. Otherwise, expect to see a hell of a lot less new FOSS in the next decade, which will be a pyrrhic victory. If FOSS can't meet the demands of the time, it needs to be updated or replaced.
    - immibis 2y ago
      The majority of software was always proprietary. GNU was a revolutionary idea. Businesses giving away their product to gain favor is just the natural tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      Selling software is a deadend. Nobody in their right mind will pay for it because the risks are too great. If you want to build a technology business sell services and support.
WD-42 2y ago
Or start with the AGPL from the start instead of a pushover license and sell alternative licenses to hyper scalers if they want it.
- KingMob 2y ago
  You know Amazon has a hosted Grafana service, right? The AGPL isn't a guaranteed obstacle to hyperscalers sucking up most of the value produced by maintainers.
  - immibis 2y ago
    They don't suck it up, since they pay Grafana Labs for it.
- zwaps 2y ago
  I really would like to but from working in consulting I know that AGPL is banned in most companies since it’s specifics are completely diffuse and need to be hashed out in court (or are unpalatable). In spirit the AGPL is what is needed but in practice it kills any corporate adoption sadly. A license that singles out hyperscalers or goes by revenue is probably a better bet. Maybe a license that is more clear canbe written, maybe not.
Brian_K_White 2y ago
"walking off with your money" This is the heart of all of these stupid takes. There is no "your money" for anyone else to walk off with. Nothing was stolen. If you want to sell software, or rent access to software, then just do that honestly forom the outset. And good luck to you on that. I will not consume it unless I have no other choice, and I will not contribute to it at all period, even tertially by for instance developing things that use it or help people work out how to solve problems with it etc. In other words just generally not invest in it, in all the different ways one might invest in something. But hey maybe you will make something indispensible and do it better than anyone else can, and maybe you will get a bunch of other customers. If you want to benefit from the adoption and goodwill and army of free work that comes with open source, then do that. The honest reason to work on open source is because you yourself have recognized how much utility you have been given fo free because of it, and wish to pay it forward and basically add to humanity as a whole. What you get back out of it is the same thing everyone else does, the use of the software itself, plus your name being on it. But if you license something open source, and then care the TINIEST BIT what someone else does with it beyond adhering to the attribution and share-alike terms, then you have missed the point of open source. You are bent about being "robbed" of something that was never yours in the first place. You have no right to Amazon's billions, even the part of it that they made by hosting a copy of some oss software you happened to have written. Amazon is not selling your property, they are selling a managed hosting service. You have no right to the revenue from that. The software being hosted is a community resource there for everyone to use like the air or water, only even better since unlike Nestle taking the water from everyone else, everyone else still has the software. If anything the supposed injured party in all of these cases are the bad community members because they are often only OSS disingenuously in the first place. They start off with MIT/BSD style licenses because they know a lot of companies are allergic to GPL. But WHY are they so intolerant of GPL? Because GPL doesn't allow them to steal, but MIT allows them to steal. So they start with an MIT-type license because it's "commercial friendly" and then later cry that someone "stole" their B S freaking D licensed software. People that do that were never writing open source for the purpose of adding to the community pool in the first place. It's either dishonest or at best, possibly honest but in that case just unbelievably incompetent and ignorant.
- 2y ago
theamk 2y ago
All companies should do this.. if anything so we know what not to use. Any sort of proprietary product (be it fully closed source, source-available, or "open source with limitations") is always a risk. You were happily using database X, but they got acquired by Broadcom and now their product costs 100x what it was before. What do you do now? That's why it is much safer to adopt open source - worst case is the company goes under, but you still keep using last released version indefinitely, and hope new entity (maybe even hyperscaler!) forks the code. Or make an in-house fork if you have enough resources. "equitable source" license means it's not an option. That new product should really be much, much better than open-source alternatives to even be considered.
- palata 2y ago
  > worst case is the company goes under, but you still keep using last released version indefinitely, and hope new entity (maybe even hyperscaler!) forks the code But it's not always the worst case, is it? If the licence is permissive, an hyperscaler can just take is and make a proprietary product out of it. Hence copyleft licences without a CLA. Nobody could make Linux proprietary because the copyright is shared between so many people/companies.
  - immibis 2y ago
    They're talking about worst for the customer. You're talking about worst for the supplier.
    - palata 2y ago
      I don't understand what you are saying. What has a "supplier" to do in this? Copyleft is always the best for the customer. Copyleft says "the customer has rights". Permissive says "do whatever you want, as long as you keep my name somewhere in the attributions".
      - immibis 2y ago
        A product - in this case, software - is supplied from a supplier, or vendor, to their customer. Is this business 101? The usual worst case for the supplier is that they give the product but don't get paid, and the usual worst case for the customer is that they give the money but don't get the product. With copyleft specifically, the supplier is much more likely to not get paid, but the customer receives the benefit of being allowed to continue the maintenance of the software themselves if the supplier goes out of business. The supplier hopes this will help them acquire and keep customers, many of whom will pay, and keep them in business.
scargrillo 2y ago
This breakdown hits hard because it’s not just about business models — it’s about trust. Open source succeeded because it created shared public infrastructure. But hyperscalers turned it into extraction infrastructure: mine the code, skip the stewardship. The result? We’ve confused “open” with “free-for-the-powerful.” It’s time to stop pretending licenses are enough. This is about incentives, governance, and resilience. The next generation of “open” has to bake in counterpower — or it’s just a feeding trough for monopolies.
- palata 2y ago
  Before moving from permissive licences to non-open-source licences (because they have exceptions for TooBigTech), an easy step would be to use copyleft licences, wouldn't it?
  - KingMob 2y ago
    Not necessarily. Amazon sells a hosted Grafana service, which is AGPL.
    - palata 2y ago
      That's wrong: they pay Grafana Labs to use it as proprietary, as noted in another comment: https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/#CommAnchor1019710 https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/#CommAnchor1019710 > Grafana's a great example of this. AWS and Azure _could_ have sold the unmodified AGPL Grafana as a service or published their modified versions, but instead, they both struck proprietary licensing and co-marketing agreements with Grafana Labs.
- mfitton 2y ago
  Testing my LLM-detection abilities. Did you write this yourself? Or is this LLM produced? The phrasings stick out to me as super GPT-like.
  - Xss3 2y ago
    The em dash is a sign
palata 2y ago
> A hyperscaler clause such that any managed offering has to (1) be fully open source, (2) has to pay a fee, or (3) is prevented outright. A copyleft licence (not necessarily GPL, there is also MPL and EUPL) from the beginning on would result in (1), no need for a new license. But people "don't want strings attached" and are happier with permissive licences, and then they complain.
- zwaps 2y ago
  No you are wrong. People want adoption by any company other than hyperscalers. People would be happy to sell service contracts and the like while keeping their code foss, if only hyperscalers weren’t direct competitors to that. But the reality is that current copyleft licenses means immediate blacklist by most companies legal department. Which is why almost all cooyleft companies offer copyleft plus some corporate licensing even though in 99 percent of the cases it has nothing to do with the spirit of copyleft as companies just want to import and use the damn package in some completely unrelated internal project or whatever The combination of unclear legal precedent and corporate governance means that copyleft in it’s current state exactly does not work as most people want
  - palata 2y ago
    > But the reality is that current copyleft licenses means immediate blacklist by most companies legal department. Because they always manage to find permissively-licenced alternatives! There are many different copyleft licences (not only the GPL family, take e.g. MPL or EUPL) that can be used and that are not "viral". > The combination of unclear legal precedent and corporate governance means that copyleft in it’s current state exactly does not work as most people want This is wrong. What it means is that corporate governance doesn't handle it correctly, because they don't need to. If a project goes permissive because they want to please corporations, they shouldn't whine when they do. Otherwise they should just use a copyleft licence and teach the smaller companies that they can actually totally use that!
    - zwaps 2y ago
      that copyleft licenses have disputed consequences in the EU is a fact, which makes them inherently risky
SPBS 2y ago
> Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay. This isn't what is happening. A company called Garantia Data renamed themselves to Redis Labs and acquired the Redis trademark. They're not the original company, and they used a naming trick to present as if they are official (they are now, and nothing they did was illegal). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42256757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42256757 https://www.gomomento.com/blog/rip-redis-how-garantia-data-pulled-off-the-biggest-heist-in-open-source-history/ https://www.gomomento.com/blog/rip-redis-how-garantia-data-p...
KronisLV 2y ago
> The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee. Could you put a clause in the license that calls out those specific companies that you're concerned about and makes them pay, as well as any of their subsidiaries, a list that can be changed later? That way, smaller businesses around the software can still exist, nobody gets concerned with the license too much because it calls out specific hyperscalers (no love lost on them in the community) and you still get them to pay their fair share. Why do people try to ruin everything by SSPL that's overly restrictive and catches everyone else in the blast area, or try to write some clever license that would apply in all cases? Just call out the exact companies that are eating your lunch! Hyperscaler Anti-Freeloading License (HAFL): If you belong to any of the following companies, or are a subsidiary of them, or operate any of the given cloud platforms and want to offer the service there, pay up: Amazon Web Services (Amazon), Google Cloud Platform (Google), Microsoft Azure (Microsoft), Alibaba Cloud (Alibaba Group), IBM Cloud (IBM), Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (Oracle), Tencent Cloud (Tencent), SAP Cloud Platform (SAP). This list can be changed at our discretion.
- gkbrk 2y ago
  You could, but it still wouldn't be open source.
  - Xss3 2y ago
    It is still open source it just isn't an open license.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > a list that can be changed later? No legal department will ever approve using software under a license like that. Who wants to risk being the next addition to that list?

blibble 2y ago

the problem is the definition of Open Source is controlled by the Open Source Initiative, which has been captured by the hyperscalers which is sort of funny because the term "Open Source" was itself coined to make it possible for people to seek funding to build companies based on the (crazy?) idea of producing software, then giving away its source code 20 years later, the structure of the industry has now changed, and now "Open Source" exists to feed Amazon, Microsoft and Google if it's not possible to alter the definition to include licenses that include terms that allow sustainable value creation for businesses other than the hyperscalers, then the term is no longer fit for purpose, and we need a new one "Fair Software"?

echelon 2y ago
> "Fair Software"? That's the term most frequently used! I've seen a number of different efforts start to coalesce around this. https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/ This was also a really nice license: https://defold.com/license/ https://defold.com/license/ We need licenses like these to combat Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. "Open Source" is their grift now.
lolinder 2y ago
It's really not though. The OSI quickly loses credibility when they try to push a definition that the community doesn't like (see the Open Source AI kerfuffle). Both the OSI and the FSF are agreed that Source Available with bans on specific use cases is not FOSS. When you've got freaking Richard Stallman opposing you you really have to do better than just scream "corporate capture". Engage with his idea of Freedom, don't set up straw men.
- blibble 2y ago
  the OSI and the FSF agree, for different reasons > Both the OSI and the FSF are agreed that Source Available with bans on specific use cases is not FOSS. well... yes, because they decide the definition of the terms > When you've got freaking Richard Stallman opposing you you really have to do better than just scream "corporate capture". Engage with his idea of Freedom, don't set up straw men. Stallman has a very particular view of Freedom (itself a multifaceted term) and he rather famously completely rejects the term "Open Source" the situation we're finding ourselves in is one where three increasingly malevolent entities control and capture 100% of the value generated by writing and selling software with source code if you're an employee of these entities, great for you for the rest of us, this is a bad situation to be in and certainly not one that could produce another Red Hat
  - mcny 2y ago
    The AGPLv3 or later is both free and open source and should be the de facto license of choice in my opinion for mass adoption.
- 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

> The solution is clear: start your new database with an "equitable source / source available" license from day one. Nobody will complain about a relicense since your license will handle the hyperscalers right off the bat. Yes, this would be the honest thing to do, but people don't do it because using a non-FOSS license loses you adoption. The step you're missing in your little timeline is that the only reason the project takes off at all and becomes big enough that anyone is making money off of it is because it's Open Source. Proprietary databases, programming languages, and similar have lost big time and that's not changing any time soon. So what's really happening is that these FOSS companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to release code for free so that other devs will use it and then make money from the project while somehow banning other companies from also making money off it.

mulmen 2y ago
What's missing is why open source won. It's impossible to be rug pulled. If the maintainers (this is a carefully chosen word) attempt a rug-pull you can just Elastic or Redis them. If the product is closed this is impossible and you're at the mercy of whoever you built on. Open Source is the ultimate right to repair. Everything is working as intended.
- KingMob 2y ago
  > Everything is working as intended. If this true, than we need something else. Otherwise, expect to see a hell of a lot less new FOSS in the next decade, which will be a pyrrhic victory. If FOSS can't meet the demands of the time, it needs to be updated or replaced.
  - immibis 2y ago
    The majority of software was always proprietary. GNU was a revolutionary idea. Businesses giving away their product to gain favor is just the natural tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    Selling software is a deadend. Nobody in their right mind will pay for it because the risks are too great. If you want to build a technology business sell services and support.

WD-42 2y ago

Or start with the AGPL from the start instead of a pushover license and sell alternative licenses to hyper scalers if they want it.

KingMob 2y ago
You know Amazon has a hosted Grafana service, right? The AGPL isn't a guaranteed obstacle to hyperscalers sucking up most of the value produced by maintainers.
- immibis 2y ago
  They don't suck it up, since they pay Grafana Labs for it.
zwaps 2y ago
I really would like to but from working in consulting I know that AGPL is banned in most companies since it’s specifics are completely diffuse and need to be hashed out in court (or are unpalatable). In spirit the AGPL is what is needed but in practice it kills any corporate adoption sadly. A license that singles out hyperscalers or goes by revenue is probably a better bet. Maybe a license that is more clear canbe written, maybe not.

Brian_K_White 2y ago

"walking off with your money" This is the heart of all of these stupid takes. There is no "your money" for anyone else to walk off with. Nothing was stolen. If you want to sell software, or rent access to software, then just do that honestly forom the outset. And good luck to you on that. I will not consume it unless I have no other choice, and I will not contribute to it at all period, even tertially by for instance developing things that use it or help people work out how to solve problems with it etc. In other words just generally not invest in it, in all the different ways one might invest in something. But hey maybe you will make something indispensible and do it better than anyone else can, and maybe you will get a bunch of other customers. If you want to benefit from the adoption and goodwill and army of free work that comes with open source, then do that. The honest reason to work on open source is because you yourself have recognized how much utility you have been given fo free because of it, and wish to pay it forward and basically add to humanity as a whole. What you get back out of it is the same thing everyone else does, the use of the software itself, plus your name being on it. But if you license something open source, and then care the TINIEST BIT what someone else does with it beyond adhering to the attribution and share-alike terms, then you have missed the point of open source. You are bent about being "robbed" of something that was never yours in the first place. You have no right to Amazon's billions, even the part of it that they made by hosting a copy of some oss software you happened to have written. Amazon is not selling your property, they are selling a managed hosting service. You have no right to the revenue from that. The software being hosted is a community resource there for everyone to use like the air or water, only even better since unlike Nestle taking the water from everyone else, everyone else still has the software. If anything the supposed injured party in all of these cases are the bad community members because they are often only OSS disingenuously in the first place. They start off with MIT/BSD style licenses because they know a lot of companies are allergic to GPL. But WHY are they so intolerant of GPL? Because GPL doesn't allow them to steal, but MIT allows them to steal. So they start with an MIT-type license because it's "commercial friendly" and then later cry that someone "stole" their B S freaking D licensed software. People that do that were never writing open source for the purpose of adding to the community pool in the first place. It's either dishonest or at best, possibly honest but in that case just unbelievably incompetent and ignorant.

2y ago

theamk 2y ago

All companies should do this.. if anything so we know what not to use. Any sort of proprietary product (be it fully closed source, source-available, or "open source with limitations") is always a risk. You were happily using database X, but they got acquired by Broadcom and now their product costs 100x what it was before. What do you do now? That's why it is much safer to adopt open source - worst case is the company goes under, but you still keep using last released version indefinitely, and hope new entity (maybe even hyperscaler!) forks the code. Or make an in-house fork if you have enough resources. "equitable source" license means it's not an option. That new product should really be much, much better than open-source alternatives to even be considered.

palata 2y ago
> worst case is the company goes under, but you still keep using last released version indefinitely, and hope new entity (maybe even hyperscaler!) forks the code But it's not always the worst case, is it? If the licence is permissive, an hyperscaler can just take is and make a proprietary product out of it. Hence copyleft licences without a CLA. Nobody could make Linux proprietary because the copyright is shared between so many people/companies.
- immibis 2y ago
  They're talking about worst for the customer. You're talking about worst for the supplier.
  - palata 2y ago
    I don't understand what you are saying. What has a "supplier" to do in this? Copyleft is always the best for the customer. Copyleft says "the customer has rights". Permissive says "do whatever you want, as long as you keep my name somewhere in the attributions".
    - immibis 2y ago
      A product - in this case, software - is supplied from a supplier, or vendor, to their customer. Is this business 101? The usual worst case for the supplier is that they give the product but don't get paid, and the usual worst case for the customer is that they give the money but don't get the product. With copyleft specifically, the supplier is much more likely to not get paid, but the customer receives the benefit of being allowed to continue the maintenance of the software themselves if the supplier goes out of business. The supplier hopes this will help them acquire and keep customers, many of whom will pay, and keep them in business.

scargrillo 2y ago

This breakdown hits hard because it’s not just about business models — it’s about trust. Open source succeeded because it created shared public infrastructure. But hyperscalers turned it into extraction infrastructure: mine the code, skip the stewardship. The result? We’ve confused “open” with “free-for-the-powerful.” It’s time to stop pretending licenses are enough. This is about incentives, governance, and resilience. The next generation of “open” has to bake in counterpower — or it’s just a feeding trough for monopolies.

palata 2y ago
Before moving from permissive licences to non-open-source licences (because they have exceptions for TooBigTech), an easy step would be to use copyleft licences, wouldn't it?
- KingMob 2y ago
  Not necessarily. Amazon sells a hosted Grafana service, which is AGPL.
  - palata 2y ago
    That's wrong: they pay Grafana Labs to use it as proprietary, as noted in another comment: https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/#CommAnchor1019710 https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/#CommAnchor1019710 > Grafana's a great example of this. AWS and Azure _could_ have sold the unmodified AGPL Grafana as a service or published their modified versions, but instead, they both struck proprietary licensing and co-marketing agreements with Grafana Labs.
mfitton 2y ago
Testing my LLM-detection abilities. Did you write this yourself? Or is this LLM produced? The phrasings stick out to me as super GPT-like.
- Xss3 2y ago
  The em dash is a sign

palata 2y ago

> A hyperscaler clause such that any managed offering has to (1) be fully open source, (2) has to pay a fee, or (3) is prevented outright. A copyleft licence (not necessarily GPL, there is also MPL and EUPL) from the beginning on would result in (1), no need for a new license. But people "don't want strings attached" and are happier with permissive licences, and then they complain.

zwaps 2y ago
No you are wrong. People want adoption by any company other than hyperscalers. People would be happy to sell service contracts and the like while keeping their code foss, if only hyperscalers weren’t direct competitors to that. But the reality is that current copyleft licenses means immediate blacklist by most companies legal department. Which is why almost all cooyleft companies offer copyleft plus some corporate licensing even though in 99 percent of the cases it has nothing to do with the spirit of copyleft as companies just want to import and use the damn package in some completely unrelated internal project or whatever The combination of unclear legal precedent and corporate governance means that copyleft in it’s current state exactly does not work as most people want
- palata 2y ago
  > But the reality is that current copyleft licenses means immediate blacklist by most companies legal department. Because they always manage to find permissively-licenced alternatives! There are many different copyleft licences (not only the GPL family, take e.g. MPL or EUPL) that can be used and that are not "viral". > The combination of unclear legal precedent and corporate governance means that copyleft in it’s current state exactly does not work as most people want This is wrong. What it means is that corporate governance doesn't handle it correctly, because they don't need to. If a project goes permissive because they want to please corporations, they shouldn't whine when they do. Otherwise they should just use a copyleft licence and teach the smaller companies that they can actually totally use that!
  - zwaps 2y ago
    that copyleft licenses have disputed consequences in the EU is a fact, which makes them inherently risky

SPBS 2y ago

> Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay. This isn't what is happening. A company called Garantia Data renamed themselves to Redis Labs and acquired the Redis trademark. They're not the original company, and they used a naming trick to present as if they are official (they are now, and nothing they did was illegal). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42256757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42256757 https://www.gomomento.com/blog/rip-redis-how-garantia-data-pulled-off-the-biggest-heist-in-open-source-history/ https://www.gomomento.com/blog/rip-redis-how-garantia-data-p...

KronisLV 2y ago

> The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee. Could you put a clause in the license that calls out those specific companies that you're concerned about and makes them pay, as well as any of their subsidiaries, a list that can be changed later? That way, smaller businesses around the software can still exist, nobody gets concerned with the license too much because it calls out specific hyperscalers (no love lost on them in the community) and you still get them to pay their fair share. Why do people try to ruin everything by SSPL that's overly restrictive and catches everyone else in the blast area, or try to write some clever license that would apply in all cases? Just call out the exact companies that are eating your lunch! Hyperscaler Anti-Freeloading License (HAFL): If you belong to any of the following companies, or are a subsidiary of them, or operate any of the given cloud platforms and want to offer the service there, pay up: Amazon Web Services (Amazon), Google Cloud Platform (Google), Microsoft Azure (Microsoft), Alibaba Cloud (Alibaba Group), IBM Cloud (IBM), Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (Oracle), Tencent Cloud (Tencent), SAP Cloud Platform (SAP). This list can be changed at our discretion.

gkbrk 2y ago
You could, but it still wouldn't be open source.
- Xss3 2y ago
  It is still open source it just isn't an open license.
lolinder 2y ago
> a list that can be changed later? No legal department will ever approve using software under a license like that. Who wants to risk being the next addition to that list?