It's not open for me to set it up and sell as a service either.
I'm trying to think of a good analogy. Does anyone have a good one?
How about, the software is analogous to a floor plan. I come up with a great floor plan, and allow anyone to use it for their buildings. But I add a restriction that no one is allowed to sell buildings using this floor plan except me.
And to expand on that: if I get really good at building that floor plan, I can't sell my construction services to people who like that floor plan but suck at construction. And further, if I make a substantial improvement on that floorplan to address flaws with it or tailor it to different folks' needs, I can't sell that better floorplan or my services around building said better floorplan.
So now, if I want to make money with my skills and labor, I'm at the mercy of your architectural firm, which means I'm fundamentally at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating fair compensation for my labor.
I'm not sure the tragedy of the commons applies here since there is no scarce resource. How does a big company profiting from open source code hurt the open source project?
There are a couple things that SST does differently.
- The Live Lambda Development environment that I talked about in the post. That's really the biggest difference.
- And instead of CloudFormation YAML, SST uses CDK. So you can use regular programming languages to define your infrastructure.
I was able to find the video which triggered the suspension. Google didn't help me find it, by the way. Strictly speaking, he doesn't call for violence but instead tells people to go home in peace.
What he does say is that the election was fraudulent. This seems to be the illegal utterance. And by "legal", I mean a rule laid down by the relevant authority.