4 ms·

Users don't generally care that the source is available for the purposes of reading it, or even modifying it. They care that the source is available because its

by 015a 6y ago

Users don't generally care that the source is available for the purposes of reading it, or even modifying it. They care that the source is available because its a signal of their freedom to use the software how they wish; whether that's hosting with Elastic, hosting with AWS, or hosting it themselves. Any license which restricts a user's ability to use the software how they wish is no open source license. And the OSI has so far supported this; the SSPL is not an OSI approved license, despite being submitted for approval by MongoDB then retracted a year later.

wyattjoh 6y ago
> Any license which restricts a user's ability to use the software how they wish is no open source license That's the thing though. The only thing (from my naive understanding) that SSPL limits is a business (Like Amazon) from offering Elasticsearch as a service. If an organization (Like Amazon) wanted to use Elasticsearch internally (to say, power some part of their shopping platform), they are free to do so with this license. It's essentially protecting Elastic's business model, which quite honestly, should be the bare minimum offered by any open source product.
- ddevault 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong with using a licensing model like the one you describe. If don't want Amazon to use your software, then license it as such, whatever. However, that software is not open source. Furthermore, if you change a project which is open source, to a licensing model which is not, it's a dick move. It's not important if the needs of the business are "reasonable", we could argue about that but it's beside the point. Open source has no relationship with the requirements of your business. It has a specific meaning, and if you betray those principles, you betray the people who trusted you on those terms.
fabianhjr 6y ago
There are plenty closed-source (or rather not-open-source) source-available licenses and software. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Source-available_software https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Source-available_software > Any license which restricts a user's ability to use the software how they wish is no open source license. Then is AGPL not open source? It has requirments/restrictions on modified privative usage/distribution.
- ddevault 6y ago
  AGPL does not restrict how you use the software, rather, it requires that you offer the same freedoms to your users as the original license offered to you. You can sell AGPL'd software.
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    > AGPL does not restrict how you use the software, rather, it requires that you offer the same freedoms to your users as the original license offered to you. You can sell AGPL'd software. But doesn't SSPL allow you to offer ElasticSearch-as-a-Service as long as you contribute the source code that makes it work? Many have commented on how that requirement is a no-go for AWS however they are not a priori forbidden by the license from doing so.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      Elastic explicitly addresses the question of open source in their FAQ: https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#does-this-mean-that-elasticsearch-and-kibana-are-no-longer-open-source https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#does-this-mean-... Mongo has tried to get the OSI to approve it, but ultimately withdraw the license. The precise semantics of how much or how little the license diverges from the requirements of open source is an interesting topic for another time. For one, no other license, copyleft or otherwise, extends your obligations to software which is not actually a derivative work, which if nothing else requires a novel interpretation of the OSD. For now, though, I'd rather focus on the conclusion: this license does not qualify as open source, and that betrays those who choose to use or contribute to Elastic on the basis of its open source nature. They didn't get on board with the project in order to see how a dubious new license would hold up under scrutiny. This change was made for dubiously-justified commercial reasons on the false presumption that Elastic has the sole right to exploit Elasticsearch (and Kibana) for profit, software that they have shared ownership over (including in terms of copyright) with the broader community. They were allowed to do this, by the letter of the law, but it is fucked up regardless.
      - 6y ago

by 015a 6y ago

wyattjoh 6y ago

> Any license which restricts a user's ability to use the software how they wish is no open source license That's the thing though. The only thing (from my naive understanding) that SSPL limits is a business (Like Amazon) from offering Elasticsearch as a service. If an organization (Like Amazon) wanted to use Elasticsearch internally (to say, power some part of their shopping platform), they are free to do so with this license. It's essentially protecting Elastic's business model, which quite honestly, should be the bare minimum offered by any open source product.

ddevault 6y ago
There's nothing wrong with using a licensing model like the one you describe. If don't want Amazon to use your software, then license it as such, whatever. However, that software is not open source. Furthermore, if you change a project which is open source, to a licensing model which is not, it's a dick move. It's not important if the needs of the business are "reasonable", we could argue about that but it's beside the point. Open source has no relationship with the requirements of your business. It has a specific meaning, and if you betray those principles, you betray the people who trusted you on those terms.

fabianhjr 6y ago

There are plenty closed-source (or rather not-open-source) source-available licenses and software. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Source-available_software https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Source-available_software > Any license which restricts a user's ability to use the software how they wish is no open source license. Then is AGPL not open source? It has requirments/restrictions on modified privative usage/distribution.

ddevault 6y ago
AGPL does not restrict how you use the software, rather, it requires that you offer the same freedoms to your users as the original license offered to you. You can sell AGPL'd software.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  > AGPL does not restrict how you use the software, rather, it requires that you offer the same freedoms to your users as the original license offered to you. You can sell AGPL'd software. But doesn't SSPL allow you to offer ElasticSearch-as-a-Service as long as you contribute the source code that makes it work? Many have commented on how that requirement is a no-go for AWS however they are not a priori forbidden by the license from doing so.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    Elastic explicitly addresses the question of open source in their FAQ: https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#does-this-mean-that-elasticsearch-and-kibana-are-no-longer-open-source https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#does-this-mean-... Mongo has tried to get the OSI to approve it, but ultimately withdraw the license. The precise semantics of how much or how little the license diverges from the requirements of open source is an interesting topic for another time. For one, no other license, copyleft or otherwise, extends your obligations to software which is not actually a derivative work, which if nothing else requires a novel interpretation of the OSD. For now, though, I'd rather focus on the conclusion: this license does not qualify as open source, and that betrays those who choose to use or contribute to Elastic on the basis of its open source nature. They didn't get on board with the project in order to see how a dubious new license would hold up under scrutiny. This change was made for dubiously-justified commercial reasons on the false presumption that Elastic has the sole right to exploit Elasticsearch (and Kibana) for profit, software that they have shared ownership over (including in terms of copyright) with the broader community. They were allowed to do this, by the letter of the law, but it is fucked up regardless.
    - 6y ago