34 ms·

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Thinking "is this software going to be resold by Amazon" is not high up on the priority list for someone who is just working o

by isatty 6y ago

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Thinking "is this software going to be resold by Amazon" is not high up on the priority list for someone who is just working on a hobby project/releasing that project under a permissive license. Sure, this is a non problem for 99.99+% of the population and it's a relatively new "problem", but it's fair to retroactively change the license because it's within their rights.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
Important to note though that they are not retroactively changing anything. The license for old code was and remains Apache and can be used under those terms. Elastic are of course entirely entitled to change the license to whatever they feel like, including closing the source entirely for future development. But they made the choice at an earlier stage to release the code under a permissive licence - that was a choice to allow others to do what they want with the software, not just “what you want so long as it doesn’t infringe on our business model”. They are free to change their mind on that, but it’s not like it’s an unexpected, unfair, or unpredictable outcome.
bigiain 6y ago
It's only a "problem" for the 0.001-% who choose to view it that way. There's decades worth of large/serious/complex open source projects that have totally been monetised by other companies without the founders/maintainers feeling ripped off and butthurt about it. Linux, GNU, Apache, Perl, Python, PHP, Rails, WordPress, and many many more projects at least as important and complex as Elasticsearch. We don't hear Linus or Stallman, or Larry or Guido or Rasmus or DHH or Mullenweg complaining about hosting companies profiting off their work. I get that newer projects are structured differently, and that companies like Redis Labs and Mongo and Elastic are paying salaries to engineers to develop their software - which is _way_ different to the examples I cited above. But just because they've chosen that, doesn't mean they're "right" or entitled to succeed working that way. The optimist in me hopes some of them will, and perhaps this will be a route to the world getting "open source" software written that the old Apache project's model perhaps could never have achieved. I certainly don't think that's a given though. The pessimist in me feels bait-n-switched, and is wondering how to plan on staying on 7.10 safely and keeping an eye out to see who's gonna fork it and at least keep up security work on it under Apache 2.0 moving forward. We don't "sell Elasticsearch as a service", but we use it enough that I don't want to ask for legal budget to mitigate the risk of upgrading away from the Apache 2.0 licensed version. I don't trust SSPL enough to want use anything licensed that way, and I doubt I'll be very happy with Elastic License either if I spend enough time to read/understand it properly...
- jakear 6y ago
  > staying on 7.10 safely and keeping an eye out to see who's gonna fork it and at least keep up security work on it under Apache 2.0 moving forward I wonder how many companies would be willing to pay $100 a month for their elastic search to continue to receive security updates... in theory the right individual could make a decent living simply forking the various OSS projects that have since gone noSS, applying security fixes, and collecting money from the companies build on them.
- freephile 6y ago
  Almost all the examples you give are GPL. That is the only license that protects the freedom of your software. Any 'permissive' license can be converted to 'private'. Too bad nobody really understood that for the past 20 years.

by isatty 6y ago

matthewmacleod 6y ago

Important to note though that they are not retroactively changing anything. The license for old code was and remains Apache and can be used under those terms. Elastic are of course entirely entitled to change the license to whatever they feel like, including closing the source entirely for future development. But they made the choice at an earlier stage to release the code under a permissive licence - that was a choice to allow others to do what they want with the software, not just “what you want so long as it doesn’t infringe on our business model”. They are free to change their mind on that, but it’s not like it’s an unexpected, unfair, or unpredictable outcome.

bigiain 6y ago

It's only a "problem" for the 0.001-% who choose to view it that way. There's decades worth of large/serious/complex open source projects that have totally been monetised by other companies without the founders/maintainers feeling ripped off and butthurt about it. Linux, GNU, Apache, Perl, Python, PHP, Rails, WordPress, and many many more projects at least as important and complex as Elasticsearch. We don't hear Linus or Stallman, or Larry or Guido or Rasmus or DHH or Mullenweg complaining about hosting companies profiting off their work. I get that newer projects are structured differently, and that companies like Redis Labs and Mongo and Elastic are paying salaries to engineers to develop their software - which is _way_ different to the examples I cited above. But just because they've chosen that, doesn't mean they're "right" or entitled to succeed working that way. The optimist in me hopes some of them will, and perhaps this will be a route to the world getting "open source" software written that the old Apache project's model perhaps could never have achieved. I certainly don't think that's a given though. The pessimist in me feels bait-n-switched, and is wondering how to plan on staying on 7.10 safely and keeping an eye out to see who's gonna fork it and at least keep up security work on it under Apache 2.0 moving forward. We don't "sell Elasticsearch as a service", but we use it enough that I don't want to ask for legal budget to mitigate the risk of upgrading away from the Apache 2.0 licensed version. I don't trust SSPL enough to want use anything licensed that way, and I doubt I'll be very happy with Elastic License either if I spend enough time to read/understand it properly...

jakear 6y ago
> staying on 7.10 safely and keeping an eye out to see who's gonna fork it and at least keep up security work on it under Apache 2.0 moving forward I wonder how many companies would be willing to pay $100 a month for their elastic search to continue to receive security updates... in theory the right individual could make a decent living simply forking the various OSS projects that have since gone noSS, applying security fixes, and collecting money from the companies build on them.
freephile 6y ago
Almost all the examples you give are GPL. That is the only license that protects the freedom of your software. Any 'permissive' license can be converted to 'private'. Too bad nobody really understood that for the past 20 years.