3 ms·

> [Elastic] started developing new features under a proprietary license > Elastic is the rare company that truly is committed to open source On their face, th

by abtinf 8y ago

> [Elastic] started developing new features under a proprietary license > Elastic is the rare company that truly is committed to open source On their face, those two statements seem mutually exclusive. What context am I missing that would make them not so?

PeakShot 8y ago
> seem mutually exclusive Open source doesn't necessarily mean free to use. You can view entire elastic search code on github, nothing is hidden from the users. This way of licensing might be the only way an open source company can be truly profitable.
- weberc2 8y ago
  They still make it available to most everyone free to use, as I understand it. They just don't want to do the legwork for their competitors.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
weberc2 8y ago
As I understand it, they've released all of their code for a long time under an open source license and continue to release their source code and allow non-competitors to use it for free. All contributions from the community are also available under open source licenses? (this is my understanding, anyway) In your mind, how should a "committed to open source" company respond to an existential threat (not only to the business, but to the project given the business is the primary sponsor of the project)? Are there better open source licenses that allow them to meet the same ends? Or should they just cease to exist, lay off their staff, and abandon the project out of a Stallmanic dream of open source?
- didibus 8y ago
  I think they could go with a copyleft license. Or they should just announce that they are no longer committed to open source.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    > Or they should just announce that they are no longer committed to open source. Why? Because < 100% of their code is open source? This seems infeasibly idealistic, and a false dichotomy. You can be a proprietary software company that is still very committed to open source. Anyway, if < 100% is the standard, surely Amazon is worse yet, no?
csdreamer7 8y ago
Agreed. The parent's comment's last line contradicts most of the argument. Releasing it for 'free' is the not the same as an equitable Open Source license.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  It's open source meets the real world. We aren't all hippies who can sit around at MIT.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It's open source meets the real world It's nothing like open source; it's proprietary software that attempts to leverage the goodwill of the “open source” label without adhering to what that label means. > We aren't all hippies who can sit around at MIT. Look, if open source doesn't work for your business situation, that's fine, just don't lie about being committed to open source where you are truly only committed to your own profits, all while making disparaging portrayals of the people who actually are committed to open source.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Elastic, it seems to me, is the not-at-all rare company who is truly committed to using “open source” as a marketing gimmick and tool to recruit free labor, and like most such companies resents being reduced to itself playing the role it envisions for FOSS community members by a bigger fish.
- halbritt 8y ago
  Not so much for free labor but to drive adoption. Lots of people use ES for free. When that use starts to scale, most folks end up needing to pay ES for enterprise critical features or support. It’s a strategy that isn’t working out for a bunch of companies.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > Elastic, it seems to me, is the not-at-all rare company who is truly committed to using “open source” as a marketing gimmick Don't think it was that nefarious. More likely that the original developers were committed to open source, and then took lots of venture capital money to keep coding and making cool things. Now those VCs want a return on their investment, and effectively have control over the product.

by abtinf 8y ago

PeakShot 8y ago

> seem mutually exclusive Open source doesn't necessarily mean free to use. You can view entire elastic search code on github, nothing is hidden from the users. This way of licensing might be the only way an open source company can be truly profitable.

weberc2 8y ago
They still make it available to most everyone free to use, as I understand it. They just don't want to do the legwork for their competitors.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

weberc2 8y ago

As I understand it, they've released all of their code for a long time under an open source license and continue to release their source code and allow non-competitors to use it for free. All contributions from the community are also available under open source licenses? (this is my understanding, anyway) In your mind, how should a "committed to open source" company respond to an existential threat (not only to the business, but to the project given the business is the primary sponsor of the project)? Are there better open source licenses that allow them to meet the same ends? Or should they just cease to exist, lay off their staff, and abandon the project out of a Stallmanic dream of open source?

didibus 8y ago
I think they could go with a copyleft license. Or they should just announce that they are no longer committed to open source.
- weberc2 8y ago
  > Or they should just announce that they are no longer committed to open source. Why? Because < 100% of their code is open source? This seems infeasibly idealistic, and a false dichotomy. You can be a proprietary software company that is still very committed to open source. Anyway, if < 100% is the standard, surely Amazon is worse yet, no?

csdreamer7 8y ago

Agreed. The parent's comment's last line contradicts most of the argument. Releasing it for 'free' is the not the same as an equitable Open Source license.

anth_anm 8y ago
It's open source meets the real world. We aren't all hippies who can sit around at MIT.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It's open source meets the real world It's nothing like open source; it's proprietary software that attempts to leverage the goodwill of the “open source” label without adhering to what that label means. > We aren't all hippies who can sit around at MIT. Look, if open source doesn't work for your business situation, that's fine, just don't lie about being committed to open source where you are truly only committed to your own profits, all while making disparaging portrayals of the people who actually are committed to open source.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Elastic, it seems to me, is the not-at-all rare company who is truly committed to using “open source” as a marketing gimmick and tool to recruit free labor, and like most such companies resents being reduced to itself playing the role it envisions for FOSS community members by a bigger fish.

halbritt 8y ago
Not so much for free labor but to drive adoption. Lots of people use ES for free. When that use starts to scale, most folks end up needing to pay ES for enterprise critical features or support. It’s a strategy that isn’t working out for a bunch of companies.
speedplane 8y ago
> Elastic, it seems to me, is the not-at-all rare company who is truly committed to using “open source” as a marketing gimmick Don't think it was that nefarious. More likely that the original developers were committed to open source, and then took lots of venture capital money to keep coding and making cool things. Now those VCs want a return on their investment, and effectively have control over the product.