> Amazon stealing OSS products and repackaging them (...)

Since when does providing managed services started to pass off as "stealing"?

Am I stealing FLOSS projects as well if I install them on a production environment?

It makes zero sense to try to pull this sort of bait-and-switch scam with FLOSS. If you release a project into the world while explicitly stating that everyone in the whole world is free to use it as they see fit then don't complain that someone was free to use it as they saw fit.

I think you have a point. But there does seem to be a difference between say using FLOSS project X as a dependency in my app vs AWS tweaking it, introducing it as a direct competitor to X, and leveraging their huge marketshare to sell it. Seems like not illegal, not even sure if it's ethically shaky, but there does seem to be a difference right?

Or, a situation about which you might want to ruminate:

A customer is doing a full migration to the cloud. They're already using FLOSS project X on-prem and asks 'Hey, <cloud vendor>, project X is a super important part of our environment? We can't move forward unless you support it. Also, can you manage this for me? I'd really prefer not to roll my own servers.'

What would YOU, as the cloud vendor, do? Give up the on the business (both upfront migration costs and down line usage and maintenance costs), or legally exercise the license that project X's creator CHOSE?

Also, consider that, at your scale (you being the cloud vendor), if 1 customer is having this issue, it's impacting tens if not hundreds of others.

As someone who works for AWS and fields feature requests from customers constantly, the above situation very common.

As a trillion dollar company, it can acquire open source project that is vital for it's customer base rather than leeching of that project. You shouldn't make unethical practices of companies as necessary evil.

> But there does seem to be a difference between say using FLOSS project X as a dependency in my app vs AWS tweaking it, introducing it as a direct competitor to X, and leveraging their huge marketshare to sell it.

Is there really a difference at all? You're complaining that a managed service is somehow "a direct competitor". Compete in what? I mean, am I really competing with the project if I get a few instances up and running?

By your line of reasoning, they are actually helping the project grow and establish itself as relevant piece of infrastructure. Somehow I don't see this being used as a justification to demand a share of the revenue the other way around.

In the end, all I see is people complaining that someone who uses a project that was always freely distributed happens to have deep wallets, and somehow hey feel entitled to some cash just because a third party is rich. Where does this make any sense?

A managed service is "a direct competitor" in usage of the original software. And usage is the one that mostly drives development back into the service.

There isn't a legal difference in AWS repackaging an OSS project, and a company using it internally, but there is a difference in terms of the end result of how the project develops.

That's why I've seen that most comments is support of AWS are either ideologues or their livelyhood depends on a large company that's doing this.

TBH, in that scenario, AWS are usually growing the market for X such that the share of the market for X taken by the X developers probably increases after AWS joins the market for X.

Of course the blame is on the developers. If you don't want commercial enterprises to repackage your project and exclude you, choose a license that says that! How is this even controversial?

Because then everybody will jump at you and shout "OMG you don't allow for repackaging, don't ever dare to imply that your code is Open Source with all the permissions and liberties that your free labor should grant, so we don't have interest in your shitty proprietary stuff and will never check it out".

As seen on HN multiple times.

Which is what the parent refers to with the more politely put "either your fault for using a permissive license OR shame on you for not using a permissive license"

We know that building a business is hard. There is no silver bullet that provides both the adoption rates of OSS and the monetizability of proprietary software. So you pick one, and live with the consequences.

Which is why I either go commercial or hard line GPL.

Don't want to pay me? Well get payed the same way.

There are plenty of business opportunities for commercial software, it is just hard and takes effort, like everything in life.

You can both want a project to be usable commercially and still feel bad about being iced out by people who are vastly better off financially than you are. I had a big project for my Ph.D. thesis that was good enough to get spun out into a startup. They didn't even offer me a job.

They were under no obligation to, but it set my career back five years and I'm still angry about missing out on the obvious route from graduating to being really awesome at what I wanted to be really awesome at.

It's not controversial that they did this, I was a junior employee and they didn't have a ton of money. It still significantly damaged my career to be forced to start all over on a totally new thing despite literally inventing what they were doing without me.

Blame? There doesn't have to be blame for that to suck for the little guy.

Affero GPL FTW

Why is it stealing? And how does "blame" enter the picture at all? Developers went into it with their eyes open. That's not shaming or blaming them, there simply is no "blame" to be had. They made something and decided to give it away with few/no strings attached. There's decades of precedent for such projects being used to great financial profit by millions of people, so I don't find it plausible that most developers aren't fully aware of what they're doing. In fact I'd argue many want exactly this to happen. To develop something that proves incredibly useful and gets adopted by many users.

If someone did inadvertently choose a more permissive license than intended, I'm not sure what to say. "Blaming" them has too negative a connotation, but there is some responsibility on their part for the mistake, though I can sympathize with them given that licensing choice can be complex.

There's a catch 22 with choosing a restrictive license though. On the one hand it may help you monetize a product if it becomes popular, but on the other hand it becomes a lot harder to gain users and achieve that level of popularity.

However I acknowledge that the open source ecosystem and incentives have deep seated problems on this. The rise of networked society is in many ways built on such work, so there is a public good achieved that might never have been possible otherwise. On the other hand, maintaining a project can be thankless and exhausting. There's been plenty of discussions on how to help this situation, with no clear answer that I'm aware of. I certainly don't have one.