4 ms·

I wish it would be explained that way

• slimsag 6y ago
  It can be, they just chose not to (with ulterior motives or not, I cannot say.) For my side project, I am using a dual-licensed MIT/Apache (your choice) but with an exclusion which prohibits companies like AWS from offering it alone as a service. Here's a copy of the (quite human-readable) license: https://gist.github.com/slimsag/2164520b9e249fbae4e08e2bdf6eb09d https://gist.github.com/slimsag/2164520b9e249fbae4e08e2bdf6e...
  • dhd415 6y ago
    I think a more charitable interpretation of Elastic's motives in the re-licensing would be to view them the same as your motives for your side project -- allow free use to anyone except those wanting to offer it as a hosted service. You say that you've licensed your side project with MIT and Apache2 but with an exclusion. In other words, it's neither MIT nor Apache2 and it's unclear how your exclusion would hold up legally (hopefully well!). At Elastic's scale, uncertainty over a license is too risky, so I'm sure they paid their lawyers $$$ to ensure that the SSPL would hold up in the scenarios that were important to them.
    • slimsag 6y ago
      That's all fair and I agree! But I think it's unfortunate that companies end up with licenses like SSPL which are lengthy, not legible to non-lawyers (see this thread) and more importantly ambiguous in favor of the SSPL-software-provider. It's only natural, that's what lawyers are hired to do, after all! But I think there are other options (be ambiguous in favor of the opposing party, or build upon existing licenses)