[pevey]

I get that there are pros and cons of different licenses, and reasonable people my disagree, but this is the first time that occurred to them? This far down the road?

No one forced them to be open source. They did it for certain benefits. They would have gone nowhere in the early days with this new license, most likely. I can only see these moves as bait and switch. Encourage everyone to use it, allow and maybe even encourage companies to build offerings on top of it to help with traction/mindshare... and then oh btw we changed our mind. It may be their right, but I'm glad people are talking about the implications.

[_ea1k]

They likely did anticipate it, but not how ferociously some of the cloud providers would pursue the strategy.

The Amazons of the world don't have to pay a fair price for the software that they use and also get to sell at exceptionally high prices.

TBH, that last part is still somewhat of a mystery to me. How did the market evolve to such a place that large infrastructure providers can command huge gross margins? Shouldn't that be a highly commoditized part of the supply chain?

[happytiger]

It’s because people misunderstand the way that companies buy software and purchase things. The social layer of “nobody ever gets fired for buying X” is what drives adoption. Companies like AWS sell risk management first, then software capabilities.

Not many companies are “big enough to sue” at a scale that you can roll your entire brand or operation onto and know it won’t be acquired or “private equitied” tomorrow, and so it consolidates down to the major players.

Those are the factors that count for enterprise buyers.

AWS can roll out an open source tool and get massive adoption because it’s rolling out an insured product, essentially. They often even have issues or less capabilities, but it comes with support and a assumption guarantee of general availability and so aggregates and reduces the risk for large buyers.