
Open-source companies gather to gripe: Cloud giants sell our code as a service - zerop
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/20/open_source_companies_cloud/
======
prepend
I remember in the 90s IBM started packaging and selling Apache web server.
Some of my colleagues thought this was bad. But I went to ApacheCon and they
were totally cool with it. There was a good talk, I think by Jim Jajielski,
explaining that the purpose of the Apache license is to allow this.

I don’t get these articles because it seems like “duh, that’s the point.”
Either the press is stupid, or the companies are acting in bad faith, or the
founders didn’t understand OSS, or something because cloud giants are doing
nothing wrong. It’s permissible under the license of the named software.

It’s like complaining that Apple and Google sell phones with Unix stuff in
there without licensing it. There’s no requirement to pay and no expectation.

Separately weird is that these cloud giants make tons of contributions to open
source.

~~~
gregwebs
> Separately weird is that these cloud giants make tons of contributions to
> open source

In some cases a cloud provider makes millions of dollars from a particular
open source project and gives nothing back to it. This is the behavior that
concerns many. It is also easy to see this as against the spirit of the GPL
license, even if projects should switch to AGPL if that is really the case.

~~~
prepend
Maybe not to a particular project but I don’t know any “cloud giants” without
big OSS contribution footprints- Amazon, Microsoft, Google all have lots of
open source projects and contribs. I don’t care to measure OSS karma but these
aren’t people always taking and never giving.

I don’t think this is against the spirit of the GPL license and that’s why
there is AGPL. The companies complaining here aren’t GPL anyway. Although I
think the opinion that this is against GPL is wrong, I kind of understand it.
But it’s loco that it’s against MIT/BSD/ASL.

~~~
ClumsyPilot
The whole problem is that Amazon contributes very little, if at all, and
frequently creates closed source forks of projects

~~~
prepend
Amazon contributes a ton [0]. Contribs in most major projects and 1600+ GitHub
projects.

Technically their fork of ES is more open than the software they forked.

I’m not sure what is appropriate to consider “very little” but Amazon is a
direct contributor and member of the Linux Foundation.

What’s an acceptable level of participation?

[0] [https://aws.amazon.com/opensource/](https://aws.amazon.com/opensource/)

------
gregwebs
This is a horrible article. I don't think the reporter was at the conference.
I was on Thursday. There was one talk with this complaint (speaker mentioned
in the article) and everything else was just discussing open source business
in pragmatic ways without lamenting cloud provider behavior.

~~~
travisoliphant
I was also there on Thursday and agree. The talks were actually observing that
cloud giants do alter the business landscape for open-source, but there are
always innovations and possibilities. There were one or two talks on
alternative licensing schemes, but the most interesting talks to me were
alternative virtuous cycles that are available for supporting open-source
while allowing any company to benefit.

------
hannob
Look, this all comes down to a simple thing: If you do Open Source you get
Open Source - with all the up- and downsides this may mean for you. Upsides
include that you may get community contributions (though that's not a given)
and that many people will like your software more because they prefer Open
Source. Downsides include that you can't force any user of your software to
pay you.

What you can't have is all the upsides without the downsides. Sorry.

------
pnako
In the 80s, Bill Gates and others figured out that hardware was a commodity
and most of the value is actually in the software.

It's possible we're seeing a reversal of that trend; like we're seeing the
trend of a distributed/decentralized Internet increasingly look like a single
big computer run by Cloudflare, Google and a few others; Minitel 2.0.

~~~
rndgermandude
Right now you have a bunch of companies in the top 10 that see software as a
commodity they either give away for free or keep entirely to themselves and do
not sell directly: Apple, Alphabet, Facebook and to a degree Amazon (AWS) and
even Microsoft.

Apple makes money on Hardware, followed by services (incl the App Store). The
software that people actually run they give away (mostly), like macOS, iOS,
productivity apps bundled with their OSes, XCode, etc.

Alphabet makes a living mostly off of services (mostly ad brokerage, some
cloud stuff too) and gives away a lot of software (such as Android, the Play*
apps and other google apps), but rarely sells "old school"/non-subscription
software licenses.

Facebook? They do not sell software either, they sell services (ad brokerage).
They give away a lot of software, be it their apps you can install (Facebook,
Messenger, WhatApp, Instagram) or their open source low-level stuff.

Amazon AWS sells services. The actual software they run is an implementation
detail. Even core Amazon moved a lot from selling actual goods as a retailer
to being a "marketplace" service platform for other retailers. And with Prime
Video and Music, they carved out their place in the subscriptions space too.
They also sell some hardware too (Echo, Fire, Kindle), tho mostly not to make
a ton of money directly off of it but bolster their other products.

Microsoft wants in on the services thing too, gave away a ton of Win10
licenses to make sure the network effect isn't compromised, and started
entering the services/subscriptions market more aggressively with things like
Xbox Live (the actual console bordering on being a loss leader) and Office
365, and to a degree the Microsoft Store, tho not particularly successful so
far.

Even Oracle desperately wants in on the services/cloud thing for a long time.

Netflix is subscriptions. The software again is an implementation detail.

Samsung sells hardware and to a degree services and subscriptions, but gives
away their software.

Adobe is all about subscriptions too.

Red Hat? Subscriptions and services.

Their new parent IBM? Subscriptions, services and hardware.

There is hardly any major player left that actually sells you software like
Microsoft did. Those who sell software usually sell you subscriptions not the
software itself.

------
jitendrac
That is totally absurd argument, those cloud or industry giants are not taking
any extra privileges, they have explicit permission to use those software. In
fact, they are the major adapters who boosts development and contribution to
eco-system. They actively motivate their employees to improve the software and
publicly contribute who are mostly the major contributors.

Big companies are not bound by these software, they can re-invent their own
wheel if needed. They are the one who opensources major new technology without
thinking about the profit for example. Anguler.js, React, Hiphop, Mysql etc.

Edit: If you really feel uncomfortable, you can release your software with GNU
AGPL, That would be tit-for-tat in your way.

------
Zelphyr
I don't understand where this sentiment is coming from lately? All of a sudden
there are people who seem shocked that corporations are profiting off of Open
Source software, even though nobody in the community has ever had a problem
with it.

~~~
thomascgalvin
I would argue that in many cases, they aren't even making money off of open
source _directly_. Like, people aren't paying Amazon for MongoDB, they're
paying someone for the infrastructure necessary to run MongoDB.

~~~
benologist
They need many millions of lines of open source just to serve a html page...
from kernel to Firefox and every bit of hardware between. Take away the open
source and they need billions in proprietary software licenses. Take away the
open source and Facebook didn't get written with PHP and MySQL. Take away the
open source and Amazon has to license Oracle and MSSQL and Windows instead of
profiting off MongoDB and PostgreSQL.

Amazon are still actively migrating _away_ from Oracle because it "doesn't
scale", what they mean is proprietary software bills per CPU core or server so
it scales proportionately to Amazon's own profits. This is just one way FAANG
leverages open source to _save_ hundreds of millions of dollars a year in
their own operations. Google forked MySQL for their advertising empire instead
of licensing MSSQL or Oracle.

I do not believe you could even count the full extent they are dependent on
open source without ripping it all out and watching them crumble. What's it
worth to FB when every job candidate is highly proficient in React? Without
open source culture driving self-education, without open source community in
place to embrace React, React needs a 2 - 3 month training course for all
newly-hired engineers!

~~~
Zelphyr
This is true. Amazon needs tons of code just to get to the point of being able
to even run Apache or nginx at all, and all that code written by contributors
for free. So is your argument that all of those developers, or, at least the
Open Source projects should be compensated by Amazon for that effort?

If so, then that suggests that Apache and nginx owe something to Linux, GNU,
etc... as well. Sure, either can be run on alternative platforms but, let's be
honest; they're usually run on Linux. One might even argue that neither Apache
or nginx would exist had Linus not made Linux Open Source.

You bring up React. What's it worth to Facebook for all those engineers
proficient in React? Well, React was created by developers who work/worked for
Facebook so it seems to me the question is really, what's it worth all of us
who might use React? Facebook sponsored it and has easily spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars on engineer salaries, equipment for them, office space,
etc... By your logic, all the developers not working for Facebook who use
React should compensate Facebook for their generosity. See how absurd this
starts to become?

This is all a false dichotomy. To suggest these companies owe the open source
community is wrong. No open source developer I've ever met (and I've been in
this community for over 20 years) has EVER said they expected some kind of
compensation. That's not what Open Source is about.

~~~
benologist
I'm not saying they owe open source. I'm saying they leverage an absolute ton
of open source, they are deeply dependent on it. All their communication,
infrastructure, software and services and processes are dependent upon open
source.

If supporting open source with money is paying it forward, I think React &
other endeavors could be called paying it sideways. FAANG get legal tender fit
for any purpose, hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, billions saved
not licensing proprietary software, and what proportionately little code they
give back is not legal tender for any purpose.

But again I'm not saying they owe open source. I'm saying they could fund it
many times over and couldn't exist without it. One day they will pay it
forward just by paying fair taxes on their massive fortunes. Today they don't
even do that much.

------
sokoloff
To give an idea of the balanced nature of the article, I've pulled a few
select quotes: "the peril of cloud-provider parasitism", "open-source code
cobblers – Confluent, Elastic, MongoDB, Neo4J, and Redis Labs", "ward off
predatory cloud titans".

~~~
andreareina
"Biting the hand that feeds IT" indeed.

The style is typical of The Register, which doesn't claim any sort of
neutrality.

------
benologist
I think you can look at FAANG almost as the commercial arm of open source,
it's not necessarily bad that they are the best at monetizing open source and
increasingly specialized in doing so. It's only bad when they are greedy and
keep all of that money, dodge taxes globally and strip benefits from all the
employees they can.

This is like the "billionaires can be philanthropists" problem... they
overwhelmingly prefer not to so it is vastly less efficient to rely on their
philanthropy individually vs a tax collected from all of them.

FAANG have the funds and the expertise monetizing open source to carry the
entire open source community many times over, but they will hit a combined
trillion dollars in savings before that happens. They will dodge hundreds of
billions more in taxes before fueling the open source fire that furthers
technology and feeds them recruits, ideas and software.

I've heard it argued that they do pay it forward through their own open source
contributions. I think this is more accurately called paying it sideways if
anything. They get legal tender fit for any purpose, and what proportionately
little code they give back is not legal tender for any purpose.

------
rohittidke
Its very good this topic is coming up. Fortune 100 companies pay a lot of
money for these services, a classic example is Azure Search, which is using
ElasticSearch. I wonder how the ElasticSearch community or the founder is
benefited. I am curious to know. Also AWS sells a dozen of open source project
as services.

~~~
lonelappde
There's a really simple solution to the problem of people you don't like using
stuff you give them: don't give it to them.

Use AGPL, or add a viral exclusion for any company with a $10B market cap or
whatever you want.

------
baybal2
I remember, not so few server software devs like that of mongo were
categorically against projects switching to AGPL few years ago because of
fears of this preventing them selling their stuff in SaaS format.

Well, now their software is being turned into SaaS, except not by them, but by
Amazon

------
tmikaeld
I don't see a problem with the current model..

If open source projects change their licensing to force paying for business
use and the cloud giants doesn't want to pay, the cloud giant could afford
forking the project and make their own version.

This could lead to the original project being unmaintained and the new fork
becoming the standard, if that happens and given enough time, the cloud giant
can make software patents on the changes they've committed and change the
license of that code/features. Making it even harder to create something
similar or even something new with the same features.

~~~
johannes1234321
> I don't see a problem with the current model..

The question is why you are doing OpenSource. If you are a VC funded startup
doing OpenSource for marketing (engaging a community ofnusers, producing an
environment of tools around your product and sometimes providing a patch)
there is an issue if revenue goes to AWS.

If you do OpenSource since you actually need the tool and/or it's not your
core business there is little issue if others are using it to provide a
service. They might even make your software more robust and stable and better
for you. As long as your goals are not misaligned. If they are misaligned they
form away and it's like they were never there for you ...

------
yonixw
Sometimes I want to pay someone else to handle everything (Upgrades, Security
patches, Bugs etc.) While no one stopping me from buying a VM and doing it
myself. So what's the problem?

------
chiefalchemist
Would it be possible to have licensea based on usage. I believe the image
(photography) sites do this, and prices reflect it.

That said, perhaps the industry needs an ethical framework similar to tithing?
While I understand these software publishers are upset, no one involved has
done anything wrong. Big companies taking advantage of free software can't be
a surprise.

------
fortran77
You give away your software without too many constraints, and you should
expect this.

------
nqzero
I've taken a cut at a license that attempts to address monetization while
preserving what I see as the underlying strengths of Open Source - reducing
the risks of collaboration and adoption:

[https://github.com/db4j/PUPL](https://github.com/db4j/PUPL)

It requires paying for usage above a level, but is symmetric and permissive
and makes future costs predictable, ie prevents the copyright owner from
pulling the rug out from underneath you after you've adopted it. The software
that I intended this license for never gained traction (so completely that no-
one ever told me "i'd try it out if it was open source") so it's untested.

But if a popular software used this license, would you be willing to use it or
contribute to it ?

~~~
runako
The gist of that license seems to be:

\- you can use this software for free at home for personal use

\- if you use it at work, you can try it out for free but you have to pay to
really use it

\- we welcome your code submissions, which will hopefully grow our license
revenue

I feel like there are already licenses out there that hit these major points.
If I ran across software that used this license, I would recommend they use
one of the other popular licenses or just dual-license.

In general, I want licenses to be written and vetted by lawyers.

~~~
human20190310
> In general, I want licenses to be written and vetted by lawyers.

I want them to be so standardized that I don't have to read them. If the
license doesn't match something I already know, I'd be reluctant to include
the code in any of my projects.

~~~
nqzero
yes, i totally agree - as much as i like the terms of my license, if i came
across an interesting software that used the license, i probably wouldn't try
it out just because the cost of understanding any new license is too high.

i've more or less given up on the software that I intended the license for,
but i mention license here in the hopes that one of these open-core companies
will create, vet and popularize a license with similar assurances

------
amos19870630
I believe in Free Software, but I also believe if software is being used to
turn a profit, there should be a cost to that.

~~~
jchook
I have seen many OSS projects that enforce exactly this. One example that
comes to mind, HighCharts.js — free until you make any money.

[https://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts/](https://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts/)

~~~
greglindahl
It's not "free software" or "open source". It's proprietary software that's
source available. If that's what you want to write or use, great.

------
marknadal
STOP IT!

Open Core is freaking not Open Source.

The article states many companies have moved AWAY from open source to "source
available".

I will proudly die on this hill, to defend true Open Source, we give away our
database tech used by 8M users (across non-profits, community ops, and for-
profit startups) in production for free
([https://github.com/amark/gun](https://github.com/amark/gun)).

This complaining has got to stop.

Go freaking license your code as (A)GPL and join Richard Stallman's ideology
if you don't like companies using your tech.

Or be brave enough to charge proprietary license, but if you do, stop your
"we're Open Source" marketing pretense. Such hypocrites.

~~~
munmaek
Everyone likes benefiting from Open Source until someone runs with their work
and makes a profit.

My take from all of this is that people have no idea what they're doing when
they license their work as Open Source.

The go-to process currently is to slap on the MIT license, call it a day, and
then forget about it until they find out someone is massively profiting from
it.

