“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling open source as products

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by teilo on Monday September 10, 2018 @09:54AM (#17951784)

The Commons Clause is a cancer to open source. It is as much as saying: You can use our software however you like, unless you charge someone to host and maintain an environment that runs our software.

In other words, it stifles one of the most powerful tools for increasing the market penetration of open source.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by duskwuff on Monday September 10, 2018 @03:11PM (#17954241)

In other other words, it isn't free software at all. It's commercial software with source code access and a limited right to free use.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by teilo on Monday September 10, 2018 @03:34PM (#17954457)

EDIT: You were agreeing with me. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't delete my goofups, so I'll let the below remain and take the karma hit.

---

Nonsense. Open Source does not mean, and has never meant, that you get everything for free.

For example, a company wishing to use Postgres in some project has a choice: Setup and manage it themselves, or pay someone to do it for them. That someone may be Amazon in the form of an RDS instance. Or maybe they hire me to setup and manage a traditional VM for them on Amazon's infrastructure. Or maybe they host it themselves, but contract with me to do all of the setup and maintenance so they don't have to. (Please note that despite having the skills for this, I don't do this for anyone but my own company.)

By your logic, any of those options turns Postgres into commercial software that ceases to be free.

By your logic, you are literally telling anyone who wishes to use Postgres: That's great. Just don't you dare to pay someone to do this for you.

How about comparing the cost difference for paying for SQL Server RDS vs. Postgres RDS. For an m4.large instance, the former is $0.977/hr. and the latter is $0.189/hr. Why do you suppose that is?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by detaro on Monday September 10, 2018 @03:36PM (#17954475)

I feel like duskwuff was violently agreeing with you about the Commons Clause, not arguing against you.

[ Parent | on HN ]