> Amazon can believe whatever they want, but when they say "maintainers of an open source project have a responsibility to ensure ... " - I call bullshit. It i

> Amazon can believe whatever they want, but when they say "maintainers of an open source project have a responsibility to ensure ... " - I call bullshit. It is true that Amazon here is just stating their own interest and are not well placed to give lessons of open source implication. Elastic has paid many developers to build open source code. However, Shay Bannon on his side, is too much using the word "open" for a company that is not running and from my POV cannot run a real open governance. Elastic is now a listed company and was VC backed. Presenting the integration of xpack in the core repositories as an "opening" when it's a move backwards in terms of open source governance, is not fully honest. There is a fundamental issue with Open Source and Investor backed companies. The main goal is not open governance, but the main goal is the company. Elastic is not clear about this. Actually not being clear means there is no open governance. Shay Bannon won't go there, because I believe as the CEO of a listed company he can't, unless it's in the interest of Elastic's investors, which means the board should decide. Elastic does not have to have open governance and can be a great OSS contributor nevertheless. And to the opposite, it is very possible that without very healthy Elastic.co, that there would be less OSS code. However it raises questions about the future. What will be the next step ? What I would prefer is to have Shay Bannon be fully honest about the fact that Elastic.co needs to be healthy for the project to be healthy unless other companies are heavily investing in the community and start contributing code. And that Elastic.co being healthy means to have a mixed model. And finally I would like to hear that Elastic.co cannot promise that this won't change because Elastic.co might have to change it if the investors decide it but that as long as he is CEO he will do his best to maintain the current mixed model as long as it is financially successful. It would be more honest that saying "doubling down on open" when you are tainting open repositories with non open source code. There was no technical reasons that the xpack repositories could not be separate. Also, there is a way to not give an advantage to any company in an open governance way while helping companies be healthy. You can decide to have an App store in which paying features are proposed only from core contributors that contribute more than a certain level. Business could be added to the goals of the open community.