This is one of the miracles of OSS. At the same time, since it is legally ok, there are subjects that will just take from open source without giving back to the more natural recipients of the economics it creates. Such setups are typically created by monopolies.
-
Show this thread
-
So the level of freedom that OSS provides creates both positive and negative effects. However in the latest two decades OSS reshaped the IT field, created possibilities that were impossible, including a startup landscape accessible for everybody.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
So really nothing to fix. I think that "OSS should be fixed" is mostly the wrong sentence used by folks that would like to really say "A completely open source setup is not viable to create big software companies in the cloud era". That sounds more legit indeed.
1 reply 2 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
And what is the solution? In the long run we can try with the "open core" model, so that part of a product may be prevented from being "stolen". But I doubt is the final stop, because the cloud itself exists because of OSS.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
For cloud providers, discouraging the production of system OSS (cause business model) in the long run will be an obvious problem. In turn this means that cloud providers that will be more OSS friendly will get an advantage.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
So what I hope is that: 1) Cloud providers will turn more diverse, with Amazon losing shares in favor of other companies, so that we go out of the monopoly. 2) Certain cloud providers to realize that OSS is vital, and to have a revenue share-back policy is a must.
3 replies 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @antirez
Would you rather have $ contributions or headcount/code contributions from AWS?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @adrianco
Money is the only option, we are talking about making a huge amount of profits instead of the company that is leading the development. A revenue sharing model is the only sane thing that can be gave back. For new projects there is the alternative of the consortium.
4 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @antirez
For the proprietary Redis Modules, we can’t contribute to them but we’ve open sourced our secure transport code, which competes with the commercial product. So your real bet is that modules become successful enough to drive licensing $, and that OSS alternatives don’t appear.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Why not giving % of profits to upstream maintainers? In this new configuration, being an OSS maintainer would turn into a proper role and people like
@antirez won't need to keep changing hat with sponsor companies.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
This is one way that AWS contributes to sustain Linux: it is a member of the Linux Foundation, and they pay Linus' salary.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.