4 ms·

I am currently struggling a bit to understand this, so please correct me if I am wrong. So if I understand this right: Elasticsearch was under the Apache 2.0 l

by chme 6y ago

I am currently struggling a bit to understand this, so please correct me if I am wrong. So if I understand this right: Elasticsearch was under the Apache 2.0 license, which, contrary to FOSS-licensed (GPL and co.), allows derivatives to be under a different license. Now they changed to a proprietary source-available license, because Amazon. If that is true, then I don't understand this: Contributors that have contributed to an open-source Apache 2.0 licensed project should have understood, that contributing to such a project means that they don't have the same protections to their work as with a FOSS project and that big companies can just take your contributions and give nothing in return.

ddevault 6y ago
It doesn't actually have anything to do with the choice of the Apache license, though you would still be correct in that case. Elastic made users sign a CLA which signs over contributor rights for distribution without any conditions whatsoever, which means that for all they care Elastic could have relicensed it as closed-source, proprietary software. The point is not that they couldn't do this, but that it's a dick move which betrays the trust of their community, and is ultimately harmful to the goals of open source.
- chme 6y ago
  > The point is not that they couldn't do this, but that it's a dick move which betrays the trust of their community, and is ultimately harmful to the goals of open source. I understand that a re-licensing to proprietary from upstream it self is really annoying and hurtful to the open-source project itself. However the only distinction of upstream doing this with a CLA and somebody else is that upstream can reuse use the project name, infrastructure, etc. Or are there any other consequences of upstream doing this vs. someone else? It could also be the beginning of something new: See OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    >Or are there any other consequences of upstream doing this vs. someone else? Yep: the community is built around the upstream project, and has a lot invested in their continued existence as an open source entity. This move will force the community to start from scratch to build a new entity which continues to meet those guarantees - something Elastic plans to capitalize on by capturing more users on its paid offering while the open source community struggles to set up a new entity at the same level of sophistication from scratch. The community is not without options, but that doesn't change the fact that what Elastic has done is wrong. Note: HN has been rate limiting me rather strictly today, so I'm losing my ability to keep up with this discussion. Sorry.
    - chme 6y ago
      > Yep: the community is built around the upstream project, and has a lot invested in their continued existence as an open source entity. Ok, that was what I meant with 'upstream can reuse use the project name, infrastructure, etc.'. Probably a very big 'etc.' here. So your point is more about that the contributors and the community helped build the brand and recognition of ElasticSearch, which is now, taken away from them. That is a fair critique, IMO. However, that Elastic as upstream of the project suddenly disappears for the community, I find is something, that unfortunately, many open source projects have to go through sooner or later.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        >the community helped build the brand and recognition of ElasticSearch and the software itself. Elasticsearch accepts patches from the public, albiet accompanied by a signature on the CLA that grants Elastic unfettered rights to do anything they want with the code. >However, that Elastic as upstream of the project suddenly disappears for the community, I find is something, that unfortunately, many open source projects have to go through sooner or later. Maybe, but it still doesn't make it right. This wasn't an accident, or the consequence of a company gradually succumbing to attrition. It was deliberately done for the profit motive in an already profitable company, and excused away with gaslighting and misinformation. This is why I chose to criticize them on my blog.
- Isinlor 6y ago
  The licenses are there so that you don't need to trust companies to follow some unstated rules. You clearly do not like certain permissive licenses and you should contribute only to projects that have licenses similar to GPLv3. Take it as a lesson for the future, because this is not the first time that company exercises their rights to the fullest and not the last time.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    I agree that this should be a lesson about licenses and especially CLAs, which I address directly in the article. That doesn't prevent me from criticizing Elastic for what they've done.
Isinlor 6y ago
It's my understanding too. The author clearly does not like freedoms provided by MIT, Apache, BSD and similar licenses.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mariusor 6y ago
  Clearly: https://github.com/swaywm/sway/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/swaywm/sway/blob/master/LICENSE
bb88 6y ago
> Elasticsearch was under the Apache 2.0 license, which, contrary to FOSS-licensed (GPL and co.), allows derivatives to be under a different license. No. Copyright prohibits you from changing the license on copyrighted code. Do some licenses allow binary redistribution? Sure. Do Some licenses allow source redistribution? Sure. Can you include Apache 2.0 licensed code in a GPL project? Yes. But you can't change the original license for the code.

by chme 6y ago

ddevault 6y ago

It doesn't actually have anything to do with the choice of the Apache license, though you would still be correct in that case. Elastic made users sign a CLA which signs over contributor rights for distribution without any conditions whatsoever, which means that for all they care Elastic could have relicensed it as closed-source, proprietary software. The point is not that they couldn't do this, but that it's a dick move which betrays the trust of their community, and is ultimately harmful to the goals of open source.

chme 6y ago
> The point is not that they couldn't do this, but that it's a dick move which betrays the trust of their community, and is ultimately harmful to the goals of open source. I understand that a re-licensing to proprietary from upstream it self is really annoying and hurtful to the open-source project itself. However the only distinction of upstream doing this with a CLA and somebody else is that upstream can reuse use the project name, infrastructure, etc. Or are there any other consequences of upstream doing this vs. someone else? It could also be the beginning of something new: See OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice.
- ddevault 6y ago
  >Or are there any other consequences of upstream doing this vs. someone else? Yep: the community is built around the upstream project, and has a lot invested in their continued existence as an open source entity. This move will force the community to start from scratch to build a new entity which continues to meet those guarantees - something Elastic plans to capitalize on by capturing more users on its paid offering while the open source community struggles to set up a new entity at the same level of sophistication from scratch. The community is not without options, but that doesn't change the fact that what Elastic has done is wrong. Note: HN has been rate limiting me rather strictly today, so I'm losing my ability to keep up with this discussion. Sorry.
  - chme 6y ago
    > Yep: the community is built around the upstream project, and has a lot invested in their continued existence as an open source entity. Ok, that was what I meant with 'upstream can reuse use the project name, infrastructure, etc.'. Probably a very big 'etc.' here. So your point is more about that the contributors and the community helped build the brand and recognition of ElasticSearch, which is now, taken away from them. That is a fair critique, IMO. However, that Elastic as upstream of the project suddenly disappears for the community, I find is something, that unfortunately, many open source projects have to go through sooner or later.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      >the community helped build the brand and recognition of ElasticSearch and the software itself. Elasticsearch accepts patches from the public, albiet accompanied by a signature on the CLA that grants Elastic unfettered rights to do anything they want with the code. >However, that Elastic as upstream of the project suddenly disappears for the community, I find is something, that unfortunately, many open source projects have to go through sooner or later. Maybe, but it still doesn't make it right. This wasn't an accident, or the consequence of a company gradually succumbing to attrition. It was deliberately done for the profit motive in an already profitable company, and excused away with gaslighting and misinformation. This is why I chose to criticize them on my blog.
Isinlor 6y ago
The licenses are there so that you don't need to trust companies to follow some unstated rules. You clearly do not like certain permissive licenses and you should contribute only to projects that have licenses similar to GPLv3. Take it as a lesson for the future, because this is not the first time that company exercises their rights to the fullest and not the last time.
- ddevault 6y ago
  I agree that this should be a lesson about licenses and especially CLAs, which I address directly in the article. That doesn't prevent me from criticizing Elastic for what they've done.

Isinlor 6y ago

It's my understanding too. The author clearly does not like freedoms provided by MIT, Apache, BSD and similar licenses.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mariusor 6y ago
Clearly: https://github.com/swaywm/sway/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/swaywm/sway/blob/master/LICENSE

bb88 6y ago

> Elasticsearch was under the Apache 2.0 license, which, contrary to FOSS-licensed (GPL and co.), allows derivatives to be under a different license. No. Copyright prohibits you from changing the license on copyrighted code. Do some licenses allow binary redistribution? Sure. Do Some licenses allow source redistribution? Sure. Can you include Apache 2.0 licensed code in a GPL project? Yes. But you can't change the original license for the code.