4 ms·

It's just a change to make sure that those who resell ES as a service share their code. We use AWS's ES. And, as far as I'm concerned they already open-source

It's just a change to make sure that those who resell ES as a service share their code. We use AWS's ES. And, as far as I'm concerned they already open-source their version. SSPL is actually helping the open-source community here

jameshilliard 6y ago
> It's just a change to make sure that those who resell ES as a service share their code. No, its purpose is clearly to prevent others from reselling ES as a service at all since it's effectively impossible for anyone offering ES as a service to comply with the SSPL, if they were only concerned about others that offer ES as a service sharing their code AGPLv3 would be sufficient.
tus88 6y ago
> their code Meaning the entire codebase of the infrastucture that provides the offering. I.e. the underlying code behind AWS. Not a big deal right?
mcintyre1994 6y ago
From the link: > The SSPL allows free and unrestricted use, as well as modification, with the simple requirement that if you provide the product as a service, you must also publicly release any modifications as well as the source code of your management layers under SSPL. Not a lawyer, but I think AWS fall foul of "as well as the source code of your management layers" because they have a massive amount of closed source stuff running behind their ES service.
- jameshilliard 6y ago
  > they have a massive amount of closed source stuff running behind their ES service GPL licenses are not SSPL compatible, so it would likely still be impossible to comply even if their ES service was entirely open source.
ignoramous 6y ago
SSPL isn't an open source license: https://hub.packtpub.com/mongodb-withdraws-controversial-server-side-public-license-from-the-open-source-initiatives-approval-process/ https://hub.packtpub.com/mongodb-withdraws-controversial-ser... ...and it isn't helping anyone (other than the licensor) let alone the F/OSS community: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 MPLv2, EPLv2, xGPLv3 are strictly libre even if not as wildly copyleft as SSPL.
lacker 6y ago
We use AWS's ES. And, as far as I'm concerned they already open-source their version. Unfortunately for you, there's a decent chance that AWS freezes their support at a version before this license change, and never offers upgrades. As far as I know, AWS has never agreed to offer services based on code under the SSPL license.
darkarmani 6y ago
Which means AWS is going to fork their own version of ES and not push their fixes upstream.
- whoknew1122 6y ago
  Yup. And the community at large is going to suffer for it.

jameshilliard 6y ago

> It's just a change to make sure that those who resell ES as a service share their code. No, its purpose is clearly to prevent others from reselling ES as a service at all since it's effectively impossible for anyone offering ES as a service to comply with the SSPL, if they were only concerned about others that offer ES as a service sharing their code AGPLv3 would be sufficient.

tus88 6y ago

> their code Meaning the entire codebase of the infrastucture that provides the offering. I.e. the underlying code behind AWS. Not a big deal right?

mcintyre1994 6y ago

From the link: > The SSPL allows free and unrestricted use, as well as modification, with the simple requirement that if you provide the product as a service, you must also publicly release any modifications as well as the source code of your management layers under SSPL. Not a lawyer, but I think AWS fall foul of "as well as the source code of your management layers" because they have a massive amount of closed source stuff running behind their ES service.

jameshilliard 6y ago
> they have a massive amount of closed source stuff running behind their ES service GPL licenses are not SSPL compatible, so it would likely still be impossible to comply even if their ES service was entirely open source.

ignoramous 6y ago

SSPL isn't an open source license: https://hub.packtpub.com/mongodb-withdraws-controversial-server-side-public-license-from-the-open-source-initiatives-approval-process/ https://hub.packtpub.com/mongodb-withdraws-controversial-ser... ...and it isn't helping anyone (other than the licensor) let alone the F/OSS community: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 MPLv2, EPLv2, xGPLv3 are strictly libre even if not as wildly copyleft as SSPL.

lacker 6y ago

We use AWS's ES. And, as far as I'm concerned they already open-source their version. Unfortunately for you, there's a decent chance that AWS freezes their support at a version before this license change, and never offers upgrades. As far as I know, AWS has never agreed to offer services based on code under the SSPL license.

darkarmani 6y ago

Which means AWS is going to fork their own version of ES and not push their fixes upstream.

whoknew1122 6y ago
Yup. And the community at large is going to suffer for it.