3 ms·

That's a risk they knowingly chose to accept when they opted for FOSS licensing. It's not as if people hadn't asked "Well, what if another party tries to fork

That's a risk they knowingly chose to accept when they opted for FOSS licensing. It's not as if people hadn't asked "Well, what if another party tries to fork our open source code for profit?" all the way back when FOSS was starting to gain traction in the 1990s.

pessimizer 5mo ago
OSS licensing. Free Software was designed to avoid this, and has become stricter as the technology changed. Open Source was deliberately designed to thwart this. The entire intention of it was to allow businesses to resell work that was done for free. When you fork Free Software, your fork is also Free Software.
- pabs3 5mo ago
  Free Software licenses don't restrict profit making, even the AGPL wouldn't stop Amazon from using the same strategy to beat those OSS companies in the market.
  - disgruntledphd2 5mo ago
    Yes, but at the very least, Amazon would need to contribute their code back, so it's not a complete loss.
    - pabs3 5mo ago
      That is incorrect, the FSF licenses would require Amazon contribute code forward to their users, not back to the project. Also, Amazon were already contributing code back when these companies changed their licenses, the companies don't care about code contributions, just money.
      - streetfighter64 5mo ago
        Those greedy software companies only care about money, unlike the gracious Amazon that's all about code contributions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon
        pabs3 5mo ago
        Don't get me wrong, Amazon are evil for sure, and worse than those companies.
- MaxBarraclough 5mo ago
  > OSS licensing. Free Software was designed to avoid this This is pretty much a distinction without a difference. There are licences that qualify as one but not the other (per the FSF and OSI's determinations), but none are in widespread use. > When you fork Free Software, your fork is also Free Software. That would be copyleft. [0] Not all Free Software licences are copyleft licences. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

pessimizer 5mo ago

OSS licensing. Free Software was designed to avoid this, and has become stricter as the technology changed. Open Source was deliberately designed to thwart this. The entire intention of it was to allow businesses to resell work that was done for free. When you fork Free Software, your fork is also Free Software.

pabs3 5mo ago
Free Software licenses don't restrict profit making, even the AGPL wouldn't stop Amazon from using the same strategy to beat those OSS companies in the market.
- disgruntledphd2 5mo ago
  Yes, but at the very least, Amazon would need to contribute their code back, so it's not a complete loss.
  - pabs3 5mo ago
    That is incorrect, the FSF licenses would require Amazon contribute code forward to their users, not back to the project. Also, Amazon were already contributing code back when these companies changed their licenses, the companies don't care about code contributions, just money.
    - streetfighter64 5mo ago
      Those greedy software companies only care about money, unlike the gracious Amazon that's all about code contributions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon
      - pabs3 5mo ago
        Don't get me wrong, Amazon are evil for sure, and worse than those companies.
MaxBarraclough 5mo ago
> OSS licensing. Free Software was designed to avoid this This is pretty much a distinction without a difference. There are licences that qualify as one but not the other (per the FSF and OSI's determinations), but none are in widespread use. > When you fork Free Software, your fork is also Free Software. That would be copyleft. [0] Not all Free Software licences are copyleft licences. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft