[_acco]

AFAIK, the reason for these changes is basically "prevent AWS from eating our business". Is that right?

If so, are these trends harmful to open source? Are we not choosing between:

1. A world where all revenue in OSS infrastructure ultimately flows to a few big platform companies.

2. A world where these carve-outs are commonplace.

Meta's carve-out with Llama is so interesting because it practically calls the big companies out by name. Should there be a similar standard license for open source infrastructure?

[girvo]

> Should there be a similar standard license for open source infrastructure?

Yes, I think there should be. The tech world is basically a monopoly at this point, and that's dangerous for a thousand reasons. The least those monopoly owners can do is financially contribute if they want to use these tools.

It's sad to me that the tech world is rallying around Valkey, which is Big Tech's fork: AWS et al are the ones behind it. We continue to give more and more power to the biggest players.

[gpderetta]

Affero GPL-style copyleft licenses are an option, although they are treated as radioactive by most companies. A clause that triggers the extensions over GPL only for companies beyond a certain size might make them more platable.

[eudoxus]

> although they are treated as radioactive by most companies

Isn't this reason enough to not consider it an option?

[Sloowms]

I think it comes down to the initial choice to make something open source. At that point you're well aware that big companies might use your code and profit more than you ever will. If you don't want that, don't open source and they will never use your code.

It's having your cake and eating it when you get popular by being open source and then add restrictions when you have success.

I think there should be a change to licenses where the trademark is tied to the license. You can go proprietary but you can't take back the name.

[Towaway69]

What is wrong with a non-commercial open source license for those that want to use your software for personal use and a paided up commercial license (something like Business Source License[1]) for the big tech corporations of the world?

How much open source software is being incorporated into closed source software and then being resold back to the original open source developers - to get an idea, check the licenses on a Apple phone (Settings -> General -> Legal & Regulatory -> Legal Notices)[2]. It's the who's who of open source licenses! I wonder how much Apple has contributed to those projects? Perhaps each FOSS developer mentioned there should receive - at least - a free iPhone ...

The argument of "social contract" or "moral rights" or whatever else a FOSS developer faces when changing their license to something that prevents BigTech making money off their work is unfair and unnecessary. Its their work, their choice. Just as politicians aren't held to the promises they made yesterday, so too are FOSS developers human and can change their direction/mind and license.

In addition to this, many have vested interests in these companies continuing their use of "free" (in the sense of money) software since they are themselves shareholders or employees. License fees effect the bottom line of those corporations. Imagine AWS paying a license fee for their Linux boxes ...

A corporation also has a "social contract" to fulfil, yet its the FOSS developer that needs to fulfil theirs first. Or perhaps a corporation only faces "legal contract" and for the sake of profit, a "social contract" isn't applicable to a corporation. In which case, neither should a "social contract" be applicable to a FOSS developer - when dealing with corporations.

[1] https://mariadb.com/bsl11/

[2] can also be viewed online --> https://gist.github.com/gorenje/a775f44bb9307852911f7f353466...