5 ms·

For context, this is in response to Amazon's release of "Open Distro for Elasticsearch": https://opendistro.github.io/for-elasticsearch/ https://opendistro.gith

For context, this is in response to Amazon's release of "Open Distro for Elasticsearch": https://opendistro.github.io/for-elasticsearch/ https://opendistro.github.io/for-elasticsearch/ Related discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19359602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19359602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19363961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19363961

hodgesrm 8y ago
Clicking through to the AWS blog article [1] we find this: > At AWS, we believe that maintainers of an open source project have a responsibility to ensure that the primary open source distribution remains open and free of proprietary code so that the community can build on the project freely, and the distribution does not advantage any one company over another. This was part of the promise the maintainer made when they gained developers’ trust to adopt the software. I have enormous respect for Adrian's work on cloud systems but the quote above seems very self-serving for Amazon. Open source is bound by licenses that define the terms of open source code use. There's nothing whatsoever in the licenses that binds the project developers to continue to work on the project, to maintain similar license terms in later releases, or to take (or not take) any other action in their lives. To argue otherwise seems contrary to the notions of freedom that are the foundation of open source software. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-open-open-distro-for-elasticsearch/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-... Edit: typo corrected
- sokoloff 8y ago
  I think it’s fine for Elastic to seek to go to a non-open-source license (whether source-available or not) for new developments or portions of their code. It’s also fine for others, including AWS, to take the open-source portions and fork/continue developing on the open source fork. In such a situation, I’d expect open to win over proprietary.
- bigiain 8y ago
  Amazon can believe whatever they want, but when they say "maintainers of an open source project have a responsibility to ensure ... " - I call bullshit. Those maintainers owe Amazon nothing. The have no responsibility to Amazon. None. Same as they owe me nothing. By definition (if you use any of the more-that-two-or-so-year-old definitions of "open source"), the project is defined by "remaining free and open", in that you can always use the code and license you've been using - but there's no way anybody can make it a "responsibility" of a maintainer to to anything in the future. They could die, they could get bored, they could get an all-encompassing job, they could get a family, they could get venture capital and license any future work with a non-open source license (as Redis and Elastic have done, at least in some people's view). The "the promise the maintainer made" was "here's some code, under GPL or aGPL, or Apache Licence, or Artistic license of BSD three clause, or whatever the promise at the time was. Take it or leave it. No future responsibility assumed or enforced. They might even have a track record of releasing more stuff under the same license/promise. But they can stop or change things whenever they want. If Amazon wants the maintainers to do anything else (including ever committing another line of code or fixing a bug), they can wait for them to do (or not) it at their discretion, or they can pay the maintainer (or someone else) to do it (and then, depending on the license, potentially be required to release that code under the same license. Sorry for the rant, but that line caught my eye too, and I got immediately pissed off at Amazon's sense of entitlement there. No open source maintainer owes you shit. They've shared what they've shared, and you can take it or leave it, but you taking it doesn't place any obligation or responsibility on them. (deep breath)
  - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
    Maintainers are certainly free to adopt a "take it or leave it" attitude if they want. But most maintainers (including Elastic) don't want that. They proudly declare that their developers and users are a community, and they're steering the community to produce a great and open project on an ongoing basis. The maintainers certainly have a responsibility to follow through on such promises - or at least, if Amazon is correct and they aren't following through, they have no right to complain about a hostile fork.
    - 8y ago

hodgesrm 8y ago

Clicking through to the AWS blog article [1] we find this: > At AWS, we believe that maintainers of an open source project have a responsibility to ensure that the primary open source distribution remains open and free of proprietary code so that the community can build on the project freely, and the distribution does not advantage any one company over another. This was part of the promise the maintainer made when they gained developers’ trust to adopt the software. I have enormous respect for Adrian's work on cloud systems but the quote above seems very self-serving for Amazon. Open source is bound by licenses that define the terms of open source code use. There's nothing whatsoever in the licenses that binds the project developers to continue to work on the project, to maintain similar license terms in later releases, or to take (or not take) any other action in their lives. To argue otherwise seems contrary to the notions of freedom that are the foundation of open source software. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-open-open-distro-for-elasticsearch/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-... Edit: typo corrected

sokoloff 8y ago
I think it’s fine for Elastic to seek to go to a non-open-source license (whether source-available or not) for new developments or portions of their code. It’s also fine for others, including AWS, to take the open-source portions and fork/continue developing on the open source fork. In such a situation, I’d expect open to win over proprietary.
bigiain 8y ago
Amazon can believe whatever they want, but when they say "maintainers of an open source project have a responsibility to ensure ... " - I call bullshit. Those maintainers owe Amazon nothing. The have no responsibility to Amazon. None. Same as they owe me nothing. By definition (if you use any of the more-that-two-or-so-year-old definitions of "open source"), the project is defined by "remaining free and open", in that you can always use the code and license you've been using - but there's no way anybody can make it a "responsibility" of a maintainer to to anything in the future. They could die, they could get bored, they could get an all-encompassing job, they could get a family, they could get venture capital and license any future work with a non-open source license (as Redis and Elastic have done, at least in some people's view). The "the promise the maintainer made" was "here's some code, under GPL or aGPL, or Apache Licence, or Artistic license of BSD three clause, or whatever the promise at the time was. Take it or leave it. No future responsibility assumed or enforced. They might even have a track record of releasing more stuff under the same license/promise. But they can stop or change things whenever they want. If Amazon wants the maintainers to do anything else (including ever committing another line of code or fixing a bug), they can wait for them to do (or not) it at their discretion, or they can pay the maintainer (or someone else) to do it (and then, depending on the license, potentially be required to release that code under the same license. Sorry for the rant, but that line caught my eye too, and I got immediately pissed off at Amazon's sense of entitlement there. No open source maintainer owes you shit. They've shared what they've shared, and you can take it or leave it, but you taking it doesn't place any obligation or responsibility on them. (deep breath)
- SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
  Maintainers are certainly free to adopt a "take it or leave it" attitude if they want. But most maintainers (including Elastic) don't want that. They proudly declare that their developers and users are a community, and they're steering the community to produce a great and open project on an ongoing basis. The maintainers certainly have a responsibility to follow through on such promises - or at least, if Amazon is correct and they aren't following through, they have no right to complain about a hostile fork.
  - 8y ago