Comment by jimmy2020

4 years ago

Is there any good that done by Amazon to support OSS? Like ever. They started with cloning MongoDB and now Elastic with actually zero contribution to the community regardless of their insane profits. This is a clear single. Amazon can always clone and redistribute any open source software then lock it in for AWS. If we've started to witness declining in OSS, well at least we know now who started the wave.

Do people assume that a company as large as AWS would automatically have a lot to contribute to the OSS? Maybe most of Amazon teams have not much to open source yet. Contributing to OSS is a bottom-up effort. An engineer needs to be motivated to generalize her project, to peel the code from Amazon's vast internal infrastructure, and to go through an approval process to open source her project. Given that many teams have razor-sharp focus on delivering features, for good or for bad, I was wondering how many engineers are really motivated enough to open source something internal.

  • I don't think it's a bottom up process. I feel often it's a top down process. Most companies with lots open source activity normally have management that have decided that is something they want to encourage and then it comes down to people making their code open sourcable.

    • It is both a top down process and the culture of the company itself. In the real world, we know how big tech open-sourced some of the most efficient technologies that empowered hundreds, if not millions, of startups.

  • I wish this long process that's exhausting in Amazon applies when it comes to cloning open source projects to get more profits.

  • You don't need to assume. Amazon's Open Source team regularly talks about how much they do for open source in my companies Slack. It's their own words.

Maybe a dual-company like Mozilla would at least make it more clear that the big guy that are just taking advantage of the free lunch is doing more harm than good?

Elastic should have a for-profit and a non-profit company taking donations that would actually control the open source code and hiring the core part of team working on it.

I mean, we know how badly Amazon is behaving here, but at least they should have a option where they could realistically invest.

Asking for a company to invest in a competitor that can grow and eat their lunch with the money being invested by them is not realistic. Even because the company investing the money would want to know if that money is actually being invested back in the open source software and not used by a competing company.

If, giving this choice, they didn't invest back in the foundation, it would be much more clear that they are doing it in bad faith.

I like to think, or at least I hope, that OSS isn't going to decline, it's just going to evolve. The existing OSI licenses weren't meant for a world of clouds and SAAS. I believe we'll have to find the next-generation of licenses that can succeed where AGPL tried and failed.

You're asserting that they have forked OSS and then not provided back the source code for their own improvements.

I guess we can check their github repos to see if that's the case.

This seems like a much more positive response than the one they took with MongoDB. I agree, Amazon hasn't done much, but maybe this could be a start?

  • The start maybe done by open source some technology they use that can profit and help other startups. Maybe open source their own version of "React". That will be a good start.