Open source software is something that has no meaningfully similar parallel in any other industry, and that has created untold billions (trillions?) of value across the world while also allowing literally anyone to carve out a piece of that value.
That is special. That is wonderful. It is a place for idealism. And honestly, it's worth getting angry about when people (and companies) don't respect it and improve upon it.
There's a difference between what is legally required and the greater good. Obviously, no one involved in this post is guilty of any literal crime. As you're suggesting, the license is the license.
But OSS is a fragile and wonderful thing, and an entity with the resources and clout of AWS would (at least in my opinion) do well to tend that garden rather than strip it bare.
I have accepted your terms and I am using your software in a manner that is compliant with your terms. Yet you are trying to burden me with some extra ethereal terms that you're coming up with after the fact and justifying through weird collectivist statements like "the greater good."
Use an open source license that contains ALL of the terms you want involved. You don't get to back out of the open source deal or heap guilt on others because you have regrets about other people literally complying with your terms.
This isn’t “stripping it bare”. Nothing is being taken away from the author nor is anything preventing the author or original contributors from continuing to work.
That’s the whole point of the license. You’re putting code out there for others to use however they want.
This isn’t even about legal requirement vs intent. If you put up a super permissive license, you are making the intent very clear that people can do whatever they want with it.
The lack of obligation, both legal and societal, of using open source software is what makes it so useful and lets the whole ecosystem flourish.
If your in open source for glory and getting monetary or promotional credit for your work, you’re doing it for the wrong reason.
Think of it this way - often when people become extremely wealthy, they turn to philanthropy. Because they want to give back. If someone becomes ridiculously wealthy and gives nothing back, we as a society tend to think poorly of them. Why? Because they are extremely fortunate and highly successful - and they could so easily help others without any negative impact to themselves. That ease makes us unhappy with them _not_ giving back. Because in their particular circumstance, we generally consider it _right_ to use their resources help others. Not required, but right.
Same thing with a company like Amazon. They are enormously wealthy. So we look poorly on them when they don't give back to those bringing them even more wealth. Because they easily could. Because it wouldn't hurt them at all. Because it is right.
Part of the evolving legal landscape is narrowing the gap between what is legally required and the greater good. It's not about eliminating the gap but we definitely want to rethink things when it's a gaping fault.
Exactly. Don't use an open ended license and then complain about it. If you want to restrict use, then license it appropriately. Very simple and obvious.
Exactly. Don't complain about someone being a jerk to you if you didn't get a restraining order against them. If you want to restrict them interacting with you, get a restraining order. Very simple and obvious.
You’re saying that people should lean entirely on the law. It’s pretty reasonable to have some set of behaviors that you’re willing to legally allow but also will complain about. It’s not like you can carve these things out perfectly. You’re going to either be over-permissive and have some stuff you don’t want happen, or be under-permissive and restrict behaviors you’re fine with.
To say “if you want to restrict use, then license appropriately” is to push heavily towards everyone using more restrictive licenses.
You are either the one who was in the open source movement, in which case I will hold my silence. Else I will say you do not know that open source was started when on-premise was a thing. How do you know how open source would have started now in the era of cloud?
I have worked on lots of open source software with the full intent of just putting the code out there to allow others to use as they see fit. Even if one person uses it to save them or their business time, it’s achieved its goal.
If other people contribute back, great. If I get credit, great. But those are not the motivations when you put up something like a BSD license. Licenses mean things so you need to choose a restrictive license if you get your feelings hurt when people use your software in a way you don’t like.
But GE isn't paying engineers to put out new lightbulb filament designs to the public (and other companies).
Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and many, many other companies are literally building tools for their competitors.
That's so outside the realm of possibility in any other industry that a copyright lawyer (or executive) in any heavily-patented field would laugh you out of their office for suggesting something like that.
This happens all the time across all sorts of industries. Where do you think things like ASTM standards come from? Companies pay people to participate in developing open standards that benefit themselves as well as their competitors.
That is special. That is wonderful. It is a place for idealism. And honestly, it's worth getting angry about when people (and companies) don't respect it and improve upon it.