4 ms·

PSA: This site is basically an ad. And not one about Elasticsearch at that. I don't understand what all the noise is about. The new license does not make ES cl

by fefe23 6y ago

PSA: This site is basically an ad. And not one about Elasticsearch at that. I don't understand what all the noise is about. The new license does not make ES closed source, as far as I can tell. They re-license under the MongoDB server side license, which reads a lot like a rephrased AGPL to me. None of you had any reasonable expectation of getting a free Elasticsearch to begin with, and decades worth of free maintenance, optimization and expansion. If their product is this integral to your business, then may I suggest going ahead and buying a license for it?

shawnz 6y ago
> None of you had any reasonable expectation of getting a free Elasticsearch to begin with That is sure what "Apache 2.0: now and forever", as they previously promised, means to me.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  Me too long ago. Nowadays I'd instead interpret that as "security updates for the current version forever", ... after so many smaller companies having gone SSPL or something like that
jchw 6y ago
For what it’s worth, SSPL is NOT like AGPL. IANAL but... AGPL is community oriented. With AGPL you have to contribute your modifications back even if you are only offering the application over the network and not in binary form. It extends the copyleft principle. It is still debated whether it even counts as open source. SSPL is fascinating. Let me quote Section 13: > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version. > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. Emphasis mine. Basically “release the source for your entire stack.” That’s not the same thing as AGPL. Copyleft is concerned with linkage. This license seems to impose terms on entirely unrelated pieces of software. IANAL but I don’t even think this has been tested in court before.
- softwaredoug 6y ago
  “release the source code for your entire stack”. It’s not “your entire stack” but rather your entire stack: > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service ... > Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version. Where: > “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License.
syshum 6y ago
At the end of the day this is Copy-Left debate all over again Personally I like it, I see "Open Source" being killed off with Apache, BSD. MIT and other non-copy left licensing, it allows companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and other to leach off of "Open Source" focusing exclusively on dev tools and libraries used to build their products. This has lead to ALOT of developer growth, and ALOT of Open Source access for Developers but no much growth in END USER software products that are open sourced. Linux one of the most popular Operating Systems in the world, and is the final product not a development library is as big as it is because of Copy Left, one can make a big case that the BSD's never got to be as big as Linux directly because of their permissive license.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Indeed, the proof being how much they get back from Apple, Sony. In fact, had Linux not been around, most likely all major UNIXes would be still be around, using pieces of BSD as always.

by fefe23 6y ago

shawnz 6y ago

> None of you had any reasonable expectation of getting a free Elasticsearch to begin with That is sure what "Apache 2.0: now and forever", as they previously promised, means to me.

cutemonster 6y ago
Me too long ago. Nowadays I'd instead interpret that as "security updates for the current version forever", ... after so many smaller companies having gone SSPL or something like that

jchw 6y ago

For what it’s worth, SSPL is NOT like AGPL. IANAL but... AGPL is community oriented. With AGPL you have to contribute your modifications back even if you are only offering the application over the network and not in binary form. It extends the copyleft principle. It is still debated whether it even counts as open source. SSPL is fascinating. Let me quote Section 13: > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version. > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. Emphasis mine. Basically “release the source for your entire stack.” That’s not the same thing as AGPL. Copyleft is concerned with linkage. This license seems to impose terms on entirely unrelated pieces of software. IANAL but I don’t even think this has been tested in court before.

softwaredoug 6y ago
“release the source code for your entire stack”. It’s not “your entire stack” but rather your entire stack: > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service ... > Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version. Where: > “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License.

syshum 6y ago

At the end of the day this is Copy-Left debate all over again Personally I like it, I see "Open Source" being killed off with Apache, BSD. MIT and other non-copy left licensing, it allows companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and other to leach off of "Open Source" focusing exclusively on dev tools and libraries used to build their products. This has lead to ALOT of developer growth, and ALOT of Open Source access for Developers but no much growth in END USER software products that are open sourced. Linux one of the most popular Operating Systems in the world, and is the final product not a development library is as big as it is because of Copy Left, one can make a big case that the BSD's never got to be as big as Linux directly because of their permissive license.

pjmlp 6y ago
Indeed, the proof being how much they get back from Apple, Sony. In fact, had Linux not been around, most likely all major UNIXes would be still be around, using pieces of BSD as always.