44 ms·

They still have linked their OpenCollective account, where they have raised $10K and still have a balance of $5K. [0] It's not a lot in the great scheme of thi

They still have linked their OpenCollective account, where they have raised $10K and still have a balance of $5K. [0] It's not a lot in the great scheme of things, but, have they been using a platform that's seemingly built for communities and open source to bootstrap their business? Because this is not a 'open core' situation. They just closed the repo and ran away. If they had that idea all along, I feel like it hasn't be very, let's say, ethical. -- 0: https://opencollective.com/localstack#category-ABOUT

armchairhacker 7mo ago
“Open core” is when part of the product is open-source and part is private. Was a significant part of the product private before this announcement? If not, someone can fork the repo and immediately launch a competitor (FOSS or paid). (Technically even if so, except it wouldn’t be immediate, and if they’d have to re-implement too much, it would be easier to start from scratch.)
- thefreeman 7mo ago
  yes, there were a large number of AWS products and features that were only available with a subscription
- thayne 7mo ago
  Yes there were significant portions that were proprietary before this, including support for some services. The parts that were open source might still be worth forking, but you would probably need to change every occurrence of the name to avoid trademark issues.
hungryhobbit 7mo ago
Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!? They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant. Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why aren't you complaining about how "unethical" they are?
- imiric 7mo ago
  How can people still not understand that OSS can be abused? It doesn't matter that the previous code is still available. Nobody can technically delete it from the internet, so that's hardly something they did "right". The original maintainers are gone, and users will have to rely on someone else to pick up the work, or maintain it themselves. All of this creates friction, and fragments the community. And are you not familiar with the concept of OSS rugpulls? It's when a company uses OSS as a marketing tool, and when they deem it's not profitable enough, they start cutting corners, prioritizing their commercial product, or, as in this case, shut down the OSS project altogether. None of this is being a "textbook good participant". > Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why aren't you complaining about how "unethical" they are? Frankly, there are many companies with proprietary products that behave more ethically and have more respect for their users than this. The fact that a project is released as OSS doesn't make it inherently better. Seeing OSS as a "free gift" is a terrible way of looking at it.
  - inetknght 7mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance You might want to get your arguments in order. In one sentence you're calling OSS rugpulls a problem, and then in another you're claiming that proprietary products behave more ethically. So which is it? Is it less-ethical to have provided software as open source, and then later become a proprietary product? Why? I see having source code, even for an old/unmaintained product be strictly superior to having never provided the source code no matter how much "respect" the company has for their users today.
    - imiric 7mo ago
      You might want to think about my argument a bit more. > Is it less-ethical to have provided software as open source, and then later become a proprietary product? Why? Because usually these companies use OSS as a marketing gimmick, not because they believe in it, or want to contribute to a public good. So, yes, this dishonesty is user hostile, and some companies with proprietary products do have more respect for their users. The freedoms provided by free software are a value add on top of essential values that any developer/company should have for the users of their software. OSS projects are not inherently better simply because the code is free to use, share, and modify. To be fair, I don't think a developer/company should be expected to maintain an OSS project indefinitely. Priorities change, life happens. But being a good OSS steward means making this transition gradually, trying to find a new maintainer, etc., to avoid impacting your existing user base. Archiving the project and demanding payment is the epitome of hostile behavior.
inaros 7mo ago
Its JBoss again....
tjwebbnorfolk 7mo ago
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "unethical".
lagartoflojo 7mo ago
https://opencollective.com/oc-python-fund/contributions/938894 https://opencollective.com/oc-python-fund/contributions/9388...
- tecleandor 7mo ago
  That's nice, although the rest of the funding felt more like helping them bootstrap their company. At least Python is going to get a bit of that money...

armchairhacker 7mo ago

“Open core” is when part of the product is open-source and part is private. Was a significant part of the product private before this announcement? If not, someone can fork the repo and immediately launch a competitor (FOSS or paid). (Technically even if so, except it wouldn’t be immediate, and if they’d have to re-implement too much, it would be easier to start from scratch.)

thefreeman 7mo ago
yes, there were a large number of AWS products and features that were only available with a subscription
thayne 7mo ago
Yes there were significant portions that were proprietary before this, including support for some services. The parts that were open source might still be worth forking, but you would probably need to change every occurrence of the name to avoid trademark issues.

hungryhobbit 7mo ago

Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!? They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant. Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why aren't you complaining about how "unethical" they are?

imiric 7mo ago
How can people still not understand that OSS can be abused? It doesn't matter that the previous code is still available. Nobody can technically delete it from the internet, so that's hardly something they did "right". The original maintainers are gone, and users will have to rely on someone else to pick up the work, or maintain it themselves. All of this creates friction, and fragments the community. And are you not familiar with the concept of OSS rugpulls? It's when a company uses OSS as a marketing tool, and when they deem it's not profitable enough, they start cutting corners, prioritizing their commercial product, or, as in this case, shut down the OSS project altogether. None of this is being a "textbook good participant". > Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why aren't you complaining about how "unethical" they are? Frankly, there are many companies with proprietary products that behave more ethically and have more respect for their users than this. The fact that a project is released as OSS doesn't make it inherently better. Seeing OSS as a "free gift" is a terrible way of looking at it.
- inetknght 7mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance You might want to get your arguments in order. In one sentence you're calling OSS rugpulls a problem, and then in another you're claiming that proprietary products behave more ethically. So which is it? Is it less-ethical to have provided software as open source, and then later become a proprietary product? Why? I see having source code, even for an old/unmaintained product be strictly superior to having never provided the source code no matter how much "respect" the company has for their users today.
  - imiric 7mo ago
    You might want to think about my argument a bit more. > Is it less-ethical to have provided software as open source, and then later become a proprietary product? Why? Because usually these companies use OSS as a marketing gimmick, not because they believe in it, or want to contribute to a public good. So, yes, this dishonesty is user hostile, and some companies with proprietary products do have more respect for their users. The freedoms provided by free software are a value add on top of essential values that any developer/company should have for the users of their software. OSS projects are not inherently better simply because the code is free to use, share, and modify. To be fair, I don't think a developer/company should be expected to maintain an OSS project indefinitely. Priorities change, life happens. But being a good OSS steward means making this transition gradually, trying to find a new maintainer, etc., to avoid impacting your existing user base. Archiving the project and demanding payment is the epitome of hostile behavior.

inaros 7mo ago

Its JBoss again....

tjwebbnorfolk 7mo ago

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "unethical".

lagartoflojo 7mo ago

https://opencollective.com/oc-python-fund/contributions/938894 https://opencollective.com/oc-python-fund/contributions/9388...

tecleandor 7mo ago
That's nice, although the rest of the funding felt more like helping them bootstrap their company. At least Python is going to get a bit of that money...