4 ms·
It does seem tricky. On on hand, they want to stop AWS using "Elasticsearch" in a product name because it isn't in partnership with Elastic co., but on the othe
by DougBTX 6y ago
It does seem tricky. On on hand, they want to stop AWS using "Elasticsearch" in a product name because it isn't in partnership with Elastic co., but on the other hand AWS's product really does contain Elasticsearch, which is why they are changing their license. If AWS had a product called "Elasticsearch Service" which didn't contain Elasticsearch, then it would be pretty clear cut as that would be very confusing, but a product called "Elasticsearch Service" that really does contain "Elasticsearch" seems pretty self-explanatory.
- brlewis 6y agoIn general, yes, it can be tricky to determine what will and won't be confusing to people, since different people see things differently. In this specific case, it doesn't seem tricky to me. When you have concrete examples of people getting confused, no speculation is needed.
- sokoloff 6y agoBut what are they confused over? "Amazon RDS for SQL Server" seems no more and no less confusing to me than "Amazon Elasticsearch Service". As a user, I don't care in the least about the business relationship behind the product. I care about whether Amazon RDS works like SQL Server and whether Amazon Elasticsearch Service works like Elasticsearch. What financial arrangements, if any, are behind the scenes are not a concern to users.
- dumbfounder 6y agoDoes it really contain ElasticSearch? It is a fork right, so can you still call it ElasticSearch? I don't think you should be able to use the name in this case, and you definitely can't say you are "partnered" with a company when you most definitely aren't.