3 ms·
> According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem. I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they wer
by alexey-salmin 5mo ago
> According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem.
I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license.
> Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?
They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.
- gcr 5mo agoThey both sell it for profit, but Amazon doesn’t contribute changes upstream, so the public + rest of the industry won’t benefit from their work. It’s not an equivalence.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- dmantis 5mo ago> Amazon doesn’t contribute changes upstream Are you sure that's the case with AGPL? Cause they can sue them and enforce the contribution. I doubt that's the case. And those who went with MIT/BSD openly allow distribution without contribution.
- gcr 5mo agoIn the USA, small companies don’t generally have the resources to take large companies to court, even if they’re in the right.
- kortilla 5mo agoMany companies build on top of open source to make money and don’t contribute back. That’s not the problem.
- DangitBobby 5mo agoBecause you don't see AWS as having sort of moral or ethical duties. I see all companies and people as having moral and ethical duties.
- dns_snek 5mo ago> I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license. Because parasitic antisocial behavior is viewed negatively. > They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win. Trying to apply market dynamics to selling things you didn't produce (or pay for) is fascinating...
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]