If open source means giving Amazon carte blanche to profit from your work and never contribute anything back, open source is worthless.
- Sincerely, an open source developer.
@x44203 @tindall the anticapitalist license is not a libre license, it actually isn't even an open source license. also, the ambiguous terms with no legal definition bars either almost everyone or bars no one from using it depending on how your interpret it. for those two reasons alone i would not recommend it, but there's quite a number of other problems with it that i'm not knowledge enough on to discuss confidently.
@tindall I'm trying to figure out why I started using MIT license in the first place. Probably a desire to have anyone use it since I'm always craving validation.
Though, that means I have to go through licenses again and figure out which one is good for my goals.
@tindall unfortunately the GPL doesn’t do much to prevent Amazon from using it either, since for most things they don’t make binaries available to the public anyway. They use a LOT of GPL stuff internally, and a lot of their public AWS services are built on it too.
They also have very deep pockets and programmers who are arrogant enough to think they can do better anyway, so if there’s something they can’t use legally they’ll just clone it, using your work as research/inspiration.
@waterbear @tindall oh but also AGPL doesn’t prevent the cloning of a good idea. Even if you release something AGPL, if Amazon decides it provides value to them then they’ll just make their own version that’s inspired by the hard work you did, and has the retrospect of the decisions you made so they’ll have an easier time building it.
@waterbear @tindall https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_(Perl) is an example of GPL software that Amazon used to make their initial billions, and which they’ve since replaced with their own proprietary stack based on having learned from it. There’s probably still a few legacy pages that use it too.
@sheogorath @waterbear @tindall yeah, absolutely. And also patents don’t actually stop Amazon, since the patent system is completely broken and it’s only used as a “my pile is bigger than yours” cudgel.
Best case for that route is patents become cheap/free to file and enforce, and can get an automatic license grant under certain circumstances. Which is exactly what GPL and CC were supposed to be for copyright.
@sheogorath @waterbear @tindall really a big part of the problem is that the system was set up by those who most directly benefit from it, and they’ve made it very difficult to dismantle. Fixing this requires major societal changes. I have a hard time imagining anything that can successfully use capitalism against itself, and software licenses are an inherently capitalist construct to begin with.
GPL is for client software and Software that is used on other people's machines. So for example a laptop operating systems of any kind of software you would run on a laptop for yourself.
AGPL is explicitly designed for server software. This means anything that only produces client-consumable content. Such as a http server or alike.
So my serious take on this is:
a) If I make a non-commercial open-source project for a specific (e.g. help with indy gamedev) and Amazon starts freeloading off of it, it doesn't actually make the product less useful for its initial purpose. It's infuriating but it's not like they've taken it away from me or my intended audience.
b) That being said, my design process now includes the question, "How can I best keep techbro parasites from getting rich off of this?" The AGPL helps.
c) There are cases where Amazon doing what Amazon does actually helps the project and that's also a thing I need to consider. If Amazon decided to start using one of my (terrible) programming languages internally and made the absolute contribution they could, they would still be training people in it and so increasing my userbase. For a language, that's valuable.
Notice that the people who complain about Amazon freeloading on their work are mostly also trying to commercialize their OSS products. It's shitty that Amazon is basically competing against them on their own work but these folks aren't just writing code as a gift to their community either.
The ones that are doing that (mostly) don't really care about Amazon because it doesn't matter to them. Their work is being used and that's what's important.
(Should Amazon be compelled to pay? Maybe.)
@tindall What is the balance? If Amazon can't use your software for free then no-one can use your software for free, even other open source software developers and users.
I think Amazon, Google and others should pay, the question is: should individual users or small companies pay as well? And how much should they pay? If the contribute back to the project should they still pay? If "contribution is lieu of payment" is acceptable how do determine if someone is contributing enough?
@blit32 @tindall the AGPL and stronger copyleft licenses (like the SSPL) rather precisely answer your question: the contribution is simply "tell eveyone else how you did what you're doing", which scares off corporations who are afraid of losing their ✨ corporate secrets ✨ if they have to publish source
(beware of the so-called anticapitalist software license though because releasing the code is made optional by an entity still operating under the market forces of capitalism)
Ethical Open Source and copyfarleft licenses are intent on cutting this shit out while keeping things open for good-faith contributors