4 ms·

I raised precisely this concern a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25631073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25631073 my intention there was

by j1elo 6y ago

I raised precisely this concern a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25631073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25631073 my intention there was (and still is) to learn how other HNers think of this. In there I got the response about how the precise version to which people contributed, was and will always be Open Source, regardless of what happens to future derivations of that code. I'm not sure I bought that reasoning, though... you put it better with that "fruits of their labor". Maybe not the writing, but the spirit of the permissive FOSS licenses is not to end up being swapped into a non-FOSS alternative... The previous FOSS license did indeed permit any future change in licensing; I would like to learn if that kind of choice might actually become a deterrent and an added reason for a lower number of external contributors, or not.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
> Maybe not the writing, but the spirit of the permissive FOSS licenses is not to end up being swapped into a non-FOSS alternative... Well, you can argue the spirit all day, but in practice, permissive licenses mean what they mean. Once a version is released with that license it stays that way, but subsequent versions can have a new license. Basically, you do keep the fruits of your labor - you get Elasticsearch 7.10 and all previous versions. But you have no right to Elasticsearch 7.11. Note: In practice I agree it's a dick move to go to a more restrictive license, and I strongly disagree with Elastic's decision to do so. It's just a greedy move that won't even make them more money in the long run because it will cripple the momentum ES has.