I don't get the objection to this one. Isn't the point of open source to let the best vendor win?
Too many companies fail to realize that you must relentlessly wage war on cost to survive.
This is already happening. A lot of projects that are nominally open source are more and more influenced by the decisions of particular companies which erodes its purpose.
I might be ignorant here, but isn’t it the “open source companies” that are actively doing this, rather than Amazon? It seems to me that these companies that represent an open source project are realizing that you don’t get it both ways: it turns out that releasing open source software means that the source code is open, which means that you don’t get automatic business just because the name of your company is the same as the name of the open source project.
If authors want credit and money, the license needs to state as much. You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.
Well… you can complain. You just can't sue them. But the complaint would still be valid.
You can act like a jerk and follow all the laws at the same time, it's just that the consequences for you won't be identical.
I am sure some people don't steal/murder because of laws, but I optimistically think the majority don't because they don't wish to hurt others.
The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses. The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out.
Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1]
It was never intended as a free for all.
[0] https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about
You mean...a hosting company? I find it hard to believe that the open source movement was blindsided by the realization that there are companies that sell hosting services and that somehow this destroys the viability of their movement.
There is an expectation of contribution back.
The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out.
Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1]
It was never intended as a free for all.
[0] https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about
* You have people that are ideologically driven (FSF)
* You have companies that Open Source as a weapon [0] (Chromium)
* You have projects that are very pragmatic. They believe it is the path to technical excellence.
* You have individuals do it for their resume
* You have individuals that do it just for fun :)
[0] https://www.gwern.net/Complement#open-source-as-a-strategic-...