5 ms·

I thought their license update prohibits making a service that directly sells Elasticsearch? Did I miss that they are moving to closed source?

by throw03172019 6y ago

TheChaplain 6y ago
Nope, code is still available as before and you can make changes and run the code at home/work whatever. It's just if you try to sell ES as a service, then you gotta provide your changes to the public.
- chme 6y ago
  > It's just if you try to sell ES as a service, then you gotta provide your changes to the public. Doesn't this sound a bit like AGPL?
  - karavelov 6y ago
    You can run service using AGPL software, you just have to open source your modifications.
    - chme 6y ago
      Right, isn't that what the person I replied to said?
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    Yes, but only for ElasticSearch as a service so having ElasticSearch on your backend won't generally require the distribution of the linked source code.
    - chme 6y ago
      So there is a distinction between running a ElasticSearch engine with custom changes in your backend and offering a ElasticSearch engine with custom changes to others as a backend? For a non-lawyer that seems very sketchy... I could understand that people would need some legal advice for that, to understand this stuff in detail...
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Nope, code is still available as before and you can make changes and run the code at home/work whatever. That isn't sufficient to be "Open Source". That's more of "Source Available" or "Shared Source" or something.
- throw03172019 6y ago
  So if AWS open sourced their version, it would be OK to sell as a service?
  - brabel 6y ago
    As far as I know AWS's version *is* open source.
    - rezonant 6y ago
      The new SSPL license requires them to open source a lot more, including user interfaces, backup mechanisms, and anything else necessary to offer the service
      - throw03172019 6y ago
        Interesting. I wonder if this is the reason they published aws-ui to npm yesterday?
wodenokoto 6y ago
You can’t be open source in the opensource.org definition of the word and prohibit companies and individuals from selling your program as a service. So while the source isn’t closed as in “you can’t read it anymore” it is not open as in the typical understanding of the words “open source”.
- throw03172019 6y ago
  Thank you for this explanation!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ddevault 6y ago
There's a difference between "open source" and "source available". Open source specifically means software which meets the following criteria: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Not sure why you were downvoted, but this is exactly correct. "Open Source" doesn't (just) mean "You have access to the source code." It's actually a pretty specific thing. And before anybody says it - yes, we all know that OSI doesn't have a registered trademark on "Open Source." Doesn't matter. We're talking about a de-facto definition, not de-jure. And among people who actually care about the definition of "Open Source" the OSD is the de-facto definition.
- Pet_Ant 6y ago
  The parent is the author (but not the submitter) and is pointing to the definition that has complete concensus outside of fringe opinions (which still maybe correct: "fringe" is descriptive, not a judgement). How this comment can be downvoted is beyond me as the author's definition is surely relevant to discussion of this article.
mindcrime 6y ago
Did I miss that they are moving to closed source? The "license update (that) prohibits making a service that directly sells Elasticsearch" is what makes the new license not Open Source.

I thought their license update prohibits making a service that directly sells Elasticsearch? Did I miss that they are moving to closed source?

TheChaplain 6y ago

Nope, code is still available as before and you can make changes and run the code at home/work whatever. It's just if you try to sell ES as a service, then you gotta provide your changes to the public.

chme 6y ago
> It's just if you try to sell ES as a service, then you gotta provide your changes to the public. Doesn't this sound a bit like AGPL?
- karavelov 6y ago
  You can run service using AGPL software, you just have to open source your modifications.
  - chme 6y ago
    Right, isn't that what the person I replied to said?
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  Yes, but only for ElasticSearch as a service so having ElasticSearch on your backend won't generally require the distribution of the linked source code.
  - chme 6y ago
    So there is a distinction between running a ElasticSearch engine with custom changes in your backend and offering a ElasticSearch engine with custom changes to others as a backend? For a non-lawyer that seems very sketchy... I could understand that people would need some legal advice for that, to understand this stuff in detail...
mindcrime 6y ago
Nope, code is still available as before and you can make changes and run the code at home/work whatever. That isn't sufficient to be "Open Source". That's more of "Source Available" or "Shared Source" or something.
throw03172019 6y ago
So if AWS open sourced their version, it would be OK to sell as a service?
- brabel 6y ago
  As far as I know AWS's version *is* open source.
  - rezonant 6y ago
    The new SSPL license requires them to open source a lot more, including user interfaces, backup mechanisms, and anything else necessary to offer the service
    - throw03172019 6y ago
      Interesting. I wonder if this is the reason they published aws-ui to npm yesterday?

wodenokoto 6y ago

You can’t be open source in the opensource.org definition of the word and prohibit companies and individuals from selling your program as a service. So while the source isn’t closed as in “you can’t read it anymore” it is not open as in the typical understanding of the words “open source”.

throw03172019 6y ago
Thank you for this explanation!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ddevault 6y ago

There's a difference between "open source" and "source available". Open source specifically means software which meets the following criteria: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

mindcrime 6y ago
Not sure why you were downvoted, but this is exactly correct. "Open Source" doesn't (just) mean "You have access to the source code." It's actually a pretty specific thing. And before anybody says it - yes, we all know that OSI doesn't have a registered trademark on "Open Source." Doesn't matter. We're talking about a de-facto definition, not de-jure. And among people who actually care about the definition of "Open Source" the OSD is the de-facto definition.
Pet_Ant 6y ago
The parent is the author (but not the submitter) and is pointing to the definition that has complete concensus outside of fringe opinions (which still maybe correct: "fringe" is descriptive, not a judgement). How this comment can be downvoted is beyond me as the author's definition is surely relevant to discussion of this article.

mindcrime 6y ago

Did I miss that they are moving to closed source? The "license update (that) prohibits making a service that directly sells Elasticsearch" is what makes the new license not Open Source.