<story><title>AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service</title><url>https://twitter.com/tim_nolet/status/1317061818574082050</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>EpicEng</author><text>&amp;gt;this big co strategy of &amp;quot;mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs&amp;quot; really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source.&lt;p&gt;Then use a different license. Hoping that a company like Amazon finds it in their hearts to always do what _you_ consider &amp;quot;the right thing&amp;quot; is just a loser of a strategy. You seem to want all of the good of open source, with none of the downsides. Good luck with that.</text></item><item><author>masukomi</author><text>I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they&amp;#x27;d be allowed to continue. Problem with offering job is the likelyhood of getting redirected to some other unrelated work.&lt;p&gt;instead of forking they could work with core devs to see if they wanted to support the desired features (potentially with an NDA until release).&lt;p&gt;this big co strategy of &amp;quot;mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs&amp;quot; really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>unethical_ban</author><text>&amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t like how shitty people can be? I don&amp;#x27;t care&amp;quot; - that is how this kind of comment reads. But let&amp;#x27;s move on.&lt;p&gt;Interesting idea for a license.&lt;p&gt;Everyone can use and modify it, but if a large company with a market cap above $100m or a company wholly funded or owned by such company decides to utilize this project as a for-profit service, then said large company must hire me at for no less than $175,000 in 2020 value.</text></comment>
<story><title>AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service</title><url>https://twitter.com/tim_nolet/status/1317061818574082050</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>EpicEng</author><text>&amp;gt;this big co strategy of &amp;quot;mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs&amp;quot; really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source.&lt;p&gt;Then use a different license. Hoping that a company like Amazon finds it in their hearts to always do what _you_ consider &amp;quot;the right thing&amp;quot; is just a loser of a strategy. You seem to want all of the good of open source, with none of the downsides. Good luck with that.</text></item><item><author>masukomi</author><text>I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they&amp;#x27;d be allowed to continue. Problem with offering job is the likelyhood of getting redirected to some other unrelated work.&lt;p&gt;instead of forking they could work with core devs to see if they wanted to support the desired features (potentially with an NDA until release).&lt;p&gt;this big co strategy of &amp;quot;mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs&amp;quot; really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>funkaster</author><text>This is what people don&amp;#x27;t get when arguing against GPL: &amp;quot;oh, it&amp;#x27;s such a restrictive license! so viral, blah blah blah&amp;quot;. In this case, it would&amp;#x27;ve probable not changed the outcome, but could give the author some leverage for either compensation or mention. IANAL, but my understanding is that GPL would require you to keep the same terms and mention explicitly the original source.</text></comment>