People should be more aware of what the license open source software is developed under allows.

Amazon can wrap an open source project in an AWS front end and create a paid for cloud service off the back of community effort. Or, key contributors can decide they want to take the existing code and change the license their contributions are released under going forward.

If the original license allows both these things to happen, then both are a risk and no one is being fooled.

Who cares if they do that? Do you see Torvalds and co running around crying because the entire world runs on Linux Kernels?

I would love nothing more than for a project I built or contributed to wound up as an AWS service.

Writing the code is just part of the value, running it is also very difficult. Especially as the use increases and expose new code paths and bugs and what not.

I think if a big company or two decided to lead development and charge for their Linux Linux kernels he’d have an issue as his influence etc would change. Also he is lucky in that he doesn’t have to care about the making money part. Companies have that issue.

Companies can make plenty of money.

What they can't - without giving the middle finger to OSS - is satisfy greed.

If you want to satisfy greed, fine, but be like Oracle. Sell a commercial license upfront. Don't pretend to be OSS.

Well I’m not sure if it’s just greed at the level at Amazon, Microsoft etc packaging your work and take all the support money from their vast influence.

OSS users don't complain about AWS wrapping around it. It's very much welcome.

The greedy people behind businesses managing OSS are concerned, because they are not satisfied with making money. They want to be THE ONLY ONES making LUDICROUS profits on top of community contributions.

I also have this feeling, but i do feel myself doubting from the lack of examples in this conversation. What are some recent examples of this type of scandal that we can use to solidify this conversation?

You seem to be confused. Even if the project is big and they change the license, so what?

The old code is there with the existing license still. Fork it and move on.

People, man.

you can't fork and maintain everything yourself, and that de-facto lock in is exactly what companies bank on when they pull this kind of bait and switch. The idea is precisely to gain popularity with open source, "the first dose is free" style, and then capitalize on the dependency and popularity. Literally just the developer analog to the misleading "everything is free and always will be" advertisements of consumer facing software.

Ok find other people to help, that’s how open source works no?

There’s no issue here. Just whining. There is no lock in at all.

Even if it were OSI open source the maintainers like the very thread we are in could die. Then what? Oh you fork and maintain yourself, or the project rots.

License changes are irrelevant.

Do you have any idea of what constitutes an OSS project besides characters written on an versioned repository?