6 ms·

I don't think it's that hard to understand. To some degree, Amazon's behavior is exploiting an idealism that has given us software such as Linux that we're all

I don't think it's that hard to understand. To some degree, Amazon's behavior is exploiting an idealism that has given us software such as Linux that we're all benefitting from today, and it's easy to see why a starry-eyed engineer would want to carry on that legacy and create a project such as Redis with a permissive license. What you say ("The whole point of choosing a permissive license is that you want others to have the right to profit off of your work and give you nothing in return.") is obvious in hindsight, and should go without saying if you start a project with the express intent of commercializing it. However, in many cases, it's not the obvious decision for reasons related to the project's genesis (e.g. Spark or Mesos being student projects), and in others, it's not the route taken because of an idealistic impulse that I think would be really unfortunate to see squashed.

dcbadacd 7y ago
Linux uses GPL, it kind-of forces the tit-for-tat relationship.
- adamson 7y ago
  Sure, but in this case e.g. GPL vs BSD is only marginally relevant (any modification needs to be GPL in the GPL case) to the particular case of selling OSS software as SaaS since either license lets you package and sell the bare software.
  - Drdrdrq 7y ago
    This is exactly it. GPL worked in the past, but if we take a look at Android (which is based on Linux) we can see that it failed to protect users' freedoms completely.
    - AnaniasAnanas 7y ago
      Something that GPLv3 would have prevented.
      - klipt 7y ago
        Then Android would probably have just based off BSD like iOS did.
mavelikara 7y ago
Amazon is, in effect, bringing attention to this issue and I am glad that they are. > What you say ("The whole point of choosing a permissive license is that you want others to have the right to profit off of your work and give you nothing in return.") is obvious in hindsight, and should go without saying if you start a project with the express intent of commercializing it. Even if you do thoughtfully choose a license with the express intent of commercializing the work, some competing project elsewhere - student projects, in your example - will eat your market. It is about time players entering our industry be warned of the effects of such "pissing-in-the-pool" activities.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > some competing project elsewhere - student projects, in your example - will eat your market. If a student somewhere is willing to do the same thing as your company for free and release their work under MIT, why is that a problem? This smacks to me of Microsoft complaining that projects like Linux shouldn't be allowed to exist, because its unreasonable to expect them to compete with free. If eventually we get into a state where Open Source development really isn't viable, then people will stop doing it, fewer people will be eating your market, and then Source Available projects will become commercially viable.
  - mavelikara 7y ago
    > If a student somewhere is willing to do the same thing as your company for free and release their work under MIT, why is that a problem? There isn't a problem with that. The problem is when such projects aspire to commercialize their work, find it hard, and then complain when other commercial entities exploit their work. The hypocrisy I am pointing out is that to get a software adopted initially projects choose overly permissible licenses; then when they try to monetize the project, they run into issues and cry foul.
    - jimktrains2 7y ago
      "exploit", you need the quotes because nothing was exploited. Someone else was able to execute better than you were, that isn't a crime.
badsectoracula 7y ago
> What you say [...] is obvious in hindsight It was also widely known for many years before Redis was a thing, i remember Slashdot comments from early 2000s about how BSD proponents are taken advantage of and they seem to like that whereas GPL proponents are taken advantage of as much as they take advantage those who take advantage of them (weird phrasing because the original quote i remember was a bit more explicit). So it isn't really something you only knew in hindsight, it is also something that comes by ignoring people who were warning you about the consequences of your choice (royal you here).
- leoc 7y ago
  [Fade to the regular Stallman Was Right opening credits. Theme tune plays.]
  - detaro 7y ago
    I'm sure listening more to Stallman would have helped AGPL-licensed MongoDB avoid all this.
    - leoc 7y ago
      Please rephrase your comment without the poorly-considered sarcasm and I will respond to it. Doing so is also likely to help you think through your position more clearly.
scarface74 7y ago
There was no “idealism” behind the creation of Mongo, ElasticSearch, or Redis. They were all trying to profit and used open source as marketing.
ForHackernews 7y ago
> an idealism that has given us software such as Linux No, Linux is GPL licensed, it's not a naive permissive license.
- detaro 7y ago
  Mongo was AGPL.
- adamson 7y ago
  Yes, but you’re still free to turn around and sell Linux as part of a SaaS offering as Amazon does. It saves you from someone surreptitiously forking your project and selling the fork without contributing back improvements to the public, but it doesn’t totally sidestep the issues in the article.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    True, but SaaS didn't exist at the time Linux was invented, so it's hard to fault Torvalds for not foreseeing this particular issue. The broader point, I'd argue, is that the idealism behind many successful free software projects was tempered by realism in choosing licenses that compel contributing back to the community.
    - lightedman 7y ago
      SaaS has been around since the 1960s

dcbadacd 7y ago

Linux uses GPL, it kind-of forces the tit-for-tat relationship.

adamson 7y ago
Sure, but in this case e.g. GPL vs BSD is only marginally relevant (any modification needs to be GPL in the GPL case) to the particular case of selling OSS software as SaaS since either license lets you package and sell the bare software.
- Drdrdrq 7y ago
  This is exactly it. GPL worked in the past, but if we take a look at Android (which is based on Linux) we can see that it failed to protect users' freedoms completely.
  - AnaniasAnanas 7y ago
    Something that GPLv3 would have prevented.
    - klipt 7y ago
      Then Android would probably have just based off BSD like iOS did.

mavelikara 7y ago

Amazon is, in effect, bringing attention to this issue and I am glad that they are. > What you say ("The whole point of choosing a permissive license is that you want others to have the right to profit off of your work and give you nothing in return.") is obvious in hindsight, and should go without saying if you start a project with the express intent of commercializing it. Even if you do thoughtfully choose a license with the express intent of commercializing the work, some competing project elsewhere - student projects, in your example - will eat your market. It is about time players entering our industry be warned of the effects of such "pissing-in-the-pool" activities.

danShumway 7y ago
> some competing project elsewhere - student projects, in your example - will eat your market. If a student somewhere is willing to do the same thing as your company for free and release their work under MIT, why is that a problem? This smacks to me of Microsoft complaining that projects like Linux shouldn't be allowed to exist, because its unreasonable to expect them to compete with free. If eventually we get into a state where Open Source development really isn't viable, then people will stop doing it, fewer people will be eating your market, and then Source Available projects will become commercially viable.
- mavelikara 7y ago
  > If a student somewhere is willing to do the same thing as your company for free and release their work under MIT, why is that a problem? There isn't a problem with that. The problem is when such projects aspire to commercialize their work, find it hard, and then complain when other commercial entities exploit their work. The hypocrisy I am pointing out is that to get a software adopted initially projects choose overly permissible licenses; then when they try to monetize the project, they run into issues and cry foul.
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    "exploit", you need the quotes because nothing was exploited. Someone else was able to execute better than you were, that isn't a crime.

badsectoracula 7y ago

> What you say [...] is obvious in hindsight It was also widely known for many years before Redis was a thing, i remember Slashdot comments from early 2000s about how BSD proponents are taken advantage of and they seem to like that whereas GPL proponents are taken advantage of as much as they take advantage those who take advantage of them (weird phrasing because the original quote i remember was a bit more explicit). So it isn't really something you only knew in hindsight, it is also something that comes by ignoring people who were warning you about the consequences of your choice (royal you here).

leoc 7y ago
[Fade to the regular Stallman Was Right opening credits. Theme tune plays.]
- detaro 7y ago
  I'm sure listening more to Stallman would have helped AGPL-licensed MongoDB avoid all this.
  - leoc 7y ago
    Please rephrase your comment without the poorly-considered sarcasm and I will respond to it. Doing so is also likely to help you think through your position more clearly.

scarface74 7y ago

There was no “idealism” behind the creation of Mongo, ElasticSearch, or Redis. They were all trying to profit and used open source as marketing.

ForHackernews 7y ago

> an idealism that has given us software such as Linux No, Linux is GPL licensed, it's not a naive permissive license.

detaro 7y ago
Mongo was AGPL.
adamson 7y ago
Yes, but you’re still free to turn around and sell Linux as part of a SaaS offering as Amazon does. It saves you from someone surreptitiously forking your project and selling the fork without contributing back improvements to the public, but it doesn’t totally sidestep the issues in the article.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  True, but SaaS didn't exist at the time Linux was invented, so it's hard to fault Torvalds for not foreseeing this particular issue. The broader point, I'd argue, is that the idealism behind many successful free software projects was tempered by realism in choosing licenses that compel contributing back to the community.
  - lightedman 7y ago
    SaaS has been around since the 1960s