Really pissed at how Amazon is just assing off large chunks of money by offering managed services that use open source projects. Have nothing against Amazon but isn't open source supposed to be left open source, they should atleast setup a ratio of giving back to the community which developed the project, that's not a lot to ask for and to give!

I dislike Amazon very much.
But this is nothing new. Apache is doing it for years : Intentionally over-complicate their software so companies buy services/support from them.

Welcome to devRant!

This is why Copyleft licensing is a thing. Copyleft licenses require all changes to the project source code to be made publically available. They don't restrict running to code as part of a managed service, or even using the code as part of other, non-copyleft projects either (at least, if the code is isolated and interacted with somewhat indirectly it's at least a gray area, if not outright permissable, if I understand correctly). Most companies that act like Copyleft is to be avoided don't understand the benefits (and misunderstand the drawbacks, if any) that such licensing brings. The GPLv3 was specifically written to tighten the potential loophole in the GPL that would allow behavior such as you describe. However, the perception has been promulgated that Copyleft is cancerous to other code (when careful handling could mitigate the licensing side-effects), leading to the spread of permissive licensing which allows such things.

@powerfulparadox GPL does not require publishing the source code - only those who receive the binaries have the right to obtain the source code.

Oh wait, the binaries are not distributed because they run on Amazon's servers? Well yeah, then no source code publication.

If the devs had wanted it otherwise, they could have used the AGPL, but they didn't because nobody is using that.

@Fast-Nop And even with AGPL, if the software is not modified (so the "customer" always have the source code), it would be possible for Amazon to offer a managed service.

It is still Amazon being an asshole (using other's products and give nothing in return), but the licenses explicitly allow it.

@amitds1997
The source of the applications is still open, Amazon either make a compatible product or runs the original code unmodified. The real problem is the original authors of the software does not get any cent.

Amazon could even sell copies of the (free / libre open source) software, it would still belegal - my local computer market sells copies of LibreOffice or VLC. The licences allow both. If you restrict the _usage_ of FLOSS software it isn't free/libre software anymore.

Anyway, Amazon does indeed behave like an asshole - just because they can, it doesn't mean they should.
But on the other hand, what do FLOSS developers expect? The published their software with a permission for any use case - for free - and now we are complaining not getting money?

I agree, companies like Amazon should give revenue generated from FLOSS software back, but we should not complain about it after giving them the right to do so.

@sbiewald
I think "SSPL" license used by MongoDB is a close representation of how the license should be where cloud vendors should actually give back to the community. If not their managed service codes, atleast provide equivalent man hours or a portion of it.

@sbiewald If the idea of people and companies paying out of moral obligation had ever worked, we wouldn't have a vast amount of civil law, would we?

I think there was something with redis where they introduced a clause in the license that banned commercializing managed redis instances.

@Lor-inc
Yeah, I think they licensed some of their Redis modules under this new license and restricted them being used as a database service. But it still doesn't restrict cloud providers from offering Redis service. I think AWS does offer Redis as a managed service. Even GCP does so I guess. I find GCP a bit better, although it's pricey, is that a few of their services are what they have actually worked and provided to the community. Take Kubernetes, for example.

I do understand the feeling, but what Amazon is really selling is scalability and the managed part.

Most users would not be able to setup and administer the solutions, at least not as easy.

If you can and have the hardware, fine, but doing it is not without costs and companies buying Amazon services do it because that consider it cheaper than setting up and running their own.

Gpl 3 was actually not designed specifically for amazon but to stop Tivo that sold tv boxes with open source software but used signed binaries so even with the source you could not install your own upgrades since the hardware would not run it.

And as some have mentioned, if you have open source and do mot wish for Amazon to use it, use a license that prevents it.

If you rage about how people use the rights you give them you are actually not in the spirit of open source ;)

@Voxera

I have no problem with them using open source. What I am really pissed about is them cashing on this and not giving back to the community. However, like @Fast-Nop said, if this was a utopia, at the very least Amazon would contribute something back to the community. I'm more on terms of the moral obligation part of 'taking without giving'. I just wished it would focus a bit on the 'giving' part.

@amitds1997 MongoDB has withdrawn the request of SSPL for OSI "certification" after some serious concerns:
- Is a license (legally) allowed to enforce to open source the infrastructure around the licensed software?
- What practical consequences would that license really have?
- Is the SSPL licensed software even free/libre anymore?

The problem with that license is (as I would say it), is I cannot offer any form of managed hosting anymore, as soon a customer wants MongoDB, unless making my hole stack open source (luckily not FLOSS) - even I do not have the source of it (e.g. VMware, proprietary storage systems).

And even worse, the license disallows me to use licenses software anywhere it cannot be legally enforced - if a court rules a section is illegal, I may not offer MongoDB services anymore, unless fulfilling a (not legal) contract. This is really... the opposite of "fair" MongoDB wants to be.

@Fast-Nop GPL3 explicitly requires code availability if users get to run the code, even if they don't have direct access to the binaries (the much-discussed "anti-Tivoization" clause). They don't have to publicize it or make it easy, but they do have to send you the code if you ask. GPL2, not so much, as you said.

As for devs wanting things otherwise, they can be ignorant, misinformed, or outright wrong, just like everyone else. They need people to teach them to want the right things or we continue getting proprietary free software. Of course, Amazon has the money to buy proprietary licenses (the GPL allows this explicitly) if they want to keep doing what they're doing with GPL3 code, so...

@powerfulparadox All of the "anti-tivoization"-clause does not apply to programs the user only uses over the network. This is the reason for AGPL.

The problem (as seen by MongoDB, Redis, ... devs) is not the availability if the source code (Redis isn't GPL licensed), but not getting revenue from companies offering service with free software (e.g. Redis, MongoDB).