Hacker News Reader

Comment by sequoia | Hacker News Reader

The issue is wanting to have it both ways.

- I don't want to use restrictive (GPL) license like those business-hating FSF folks–I want people to use my software _freely_

- Hey! A big business used my software in a way that rubs me the wrong way (in this case, without giving prominent enough attribution)! Not nice!

What's not nice about it? You use a permissive license but you're going to get upset if people follow the letter of your license? This doesn't make sense. This might make sense if there were not alternative licenses but there are, and the author chose not to use them. This seems like playing a mind-game. "It's permissive! Use it how you like! (but I'm going to be upset if you don't follow the unwritten attribution guideline I have in my head)." How is it fair to expect other parties to meet your secret expectations?

What did AWS do wrong here? Were they supposed to know this guy's unwritten expectations?

View on HN

There is, and will always be, a gap between what is strictly allowed/legal, and what is considered ethical/courteous.

There's a number of things that are strictly speaking legal, but still considered rude. Often, the reputation of a person or business is based at least in part on whether they do the legal bare minimum, or if they hold themselves to some level of higher standard.

I also think there's a difference between attribution because a license requires it (commonly buried several links/pages deep in some obscure "Here's a laundry list of ALL the open source packages we used to build this"), and acknowledging that a _specific_ library powers the core of a new product. I don't know of any license that marks that line.

Fair enough. I just don't know if it makes sense to expect tech companies operate with any values besides making money. That's why I say "don't ask or beg them to be courteous, force them to either be courteous or 'don't use my code', which a license can do."

Frog & scorpion don'cha know.

The other thing that annoys is the fact that the permissiveness of the license is precisely why AWS used it, probably part of why it's popular, why he can tweet about it & build his brand etc. The author has and continues to benefit from the permissiveness of the license. To enjoy the upside of permissive but complain that the downside isn't fair comes off as a bit self-serving.

AWS did wrong by being so wealthy. They could have done better easily.

It is like fair use: They guy that uses google drive to backup youtube in its entirety is not doing anything illegal. He just demonstrates that he cannot deal with freedom.

I mean this point exactly (though I come at from the other side). If one wishes a big business to respect their commons then bite the bullet and use the "restrictive" (they are in fact freedom guaranteeing) commons protecting licenses (like AGPL) be radical. If one takes issue with the business practices of big business don't gently shove back with social expectations and a sound bite here and there, draw the hard line in the sand.

> How is it fair to expect other parties to meet your secret expectations?

> What did AWS do wrong here? Were they supposed to know this guy's unwritten expectations?

I suspect you're either autistic or a lawyer being obstinate. Human society is full of unwritten expectations, we learn these quickly as a child or face social consequences. No where in the law is it written that you must say 'please' and 'thank you' but it's also expected and people are less likely to do things for you again if you don't.

So consider this situation now:

_A person (the dev) did something nice for someone else (a trillion dollar company) and they didn't bother to say thank you._

https://web.archive.org/web/20090717023402/https://zedshaw.c...

The answer you're looking for this guy wrote up 10+ years ago: If you don't like the way people are using your work, release your next work under a different license that more closely matches what you want. Learn from the mistake & don't make it again.

Maybe I'm autistic (the diagnostic criteria are very fuzzy around the edges) but I'm not sure what that has to do with my argument.

We are still humans with values. I, and I guess you too, don't want to live in a world where everyone just does their bare minimum to fulfill the law.

The fair usage principle can create much more value than complex and often unnecessary strict regulations.

I guess the author would not have complained if a small company had done what aws did just to stay afloat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com