5 ms·

I'm surprised to see the reaction here on HN, but I'm starting to realize I'm from an older generation of open source contributors and don't share the values of

by jaaron 6y ago

I'm surprised to see the reaction here on HN, but I'm starting to realize I'm from an older generation of open source contributors and don't share the values of some here. The point of open source wasn't to enable viable business models for companies like Elastic. The ASL is commercial-friendly, but the design of the license wasn't to enable any specific business model. It was to ensure the widest range of freedoms. A lot is made of the way Amazon is "taking advantage" of the license, but they aren't. They're doing exactly what is allowed, what anyone is allowed. IMHO, if you're releasing your work under an ASL-like license, then you're making a specific promise to the community about the freedoms related to your code. You're making a promise to all the adopters and contributors. The license is a promise (literally a contract) about what to expect from each other so that we can all contribute on the project together. When an actor unilaterally changes that agreement, it's understandable some may be upset. And while I know it's trendy of HN to discount non-profits like Apache as out of touch or old-school, they serve an important function in the open source ecosystem. As a non-profit, Apache doesn't really care too much what Amazon or any big or small tech company does with the code, as long as the original code remains open source and there is a community that can continue to work on it. The continuation of the community is paramount, above and beyond any one company's business model. We want software, particularly internet middleware, to be stable and last for generations. When we take a long term view for the health of the interview, Elastic's move is great for Elastic, but not for the internet as a whole. Consider where we'll be if/when Elastic collapses. Right now, Elastic has plenty of fans, but we have no guarantee that they will remain competent, competitive, and innovative over time. If their hosted service suffers, their new license ensures that no one else can compete. The advantage of broadly supported open source projects is that they can out last any one company (e.g. Sun) or any one person, so that we can build a technical commons for the future.

ywei3410 6y ago
The problem is that there are /two/ aims; one which people agree on, and the second which people disagree on. The first is source /must/ be available and /modifiable/; on that all proponents of FOSS are agreed; exactly for the reasons you've stated. The second is that we want /more/ FOSS software; not less. How we achieve that is essentially where people differ. The issue with big companies which contribute nothing or very little back to the ecosystem is the tragedy of the commons. Eventually, the number of people working on FOSS will dwindle and we won't /have/ FOSS alternatives or communities. For the record, I don't even think that AWS are the worst offenders. I've worked at places which refused to even contribute bug reports or patches to upstream systems.
- xorcist 6y ago
  How can we create more FOSS software by denying others the right to build on it? It would seem to me that this would lead to less open source, not more.
  - hirose31 6y ago
    The license does not deny others the right to build on the software. The license is a fork of the AGPL and adds a clause that requires you to open source not only software, but supporting software that is used to run the service. One could argue that this license would result in more publicly available software, not less. Here is the clause for reference: > 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 Software or modified version.
    - xorcist 6y ago
      Right. But the point here wasn't that Amazon is doing something wrong in respect to the license. They release their modifications to Elastic, and they could theoretically release whatever "functionality" is required to "interact with the functionality of the Program". What was being argued was that it was ethically wrong of Amazon to engage in this business without some sort of blessing from (and, one would imagine, revenue sharing with) the original developers. Under that argument, their misdoing isn't releasing too little, but doing the work in the first place. Something like the AGPL can absolutely be a tool for more FOSS in the world. But I think there was two things being argued here.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Isinlor 6y ago
> A lot is made of the way Amazon is "taking advantage" of the license, but they aren't. They're doing exactly what is allowed, what anyone is allowed. Elastic is also not "taking advantage" of the license. Apache License 2.0 can be combined for example with GPLv3 or as in this case Server Side Public License. This is the freedom that Apache License 2.0 provides. Both companies do what they are allowed to do under the license. You may not like the freedoms that Apache 2.0 provides, but then you should not contribute to projects under that license. GPLv3 does not grant you the freedom to easily change license terms, so probably you should contribute to projects with that license or similar. > If their hosted service suffers, their new license ensures that no one else can compete. How does it ensure that no one can compete? If you release the infrastructure code you can compete.
- jaaron 6y ago
  It's true, Elastic can relicense as they see fit. I should perhaps do a bit better clarifying between: a) The code b) The community The issue is more that the open source work had been happening under the support and auspices of Elastic with a certain license. Elastic is relicensing and the rest of the community is within rights to not want to support Elastic's now non-open source fork.
JeremyNT 6y ago
It's a sticky situation, because while these restricted licenses are clearly worse for user freedom, they are also "better than nothing" if you assume there are too few volunteer contributors and funding sources for the paid employees to continue development. I would love to know whether these quazi-open licenses will be considered successful for the companies that switch to them. There's a short term cost here, in creating market confusion and fragmentation and general uncertainty - the potential benefits can only be realized down the road, a few years once the dust has settled and the offering has enough compelling improvements to what AWS gives. Are those benefits real? My intuition is that, if you consider yourself in the business of competing against an Amazon hosted version of your own software, you've already lost. Amazon will destroy you in the end, regardless of whether they can directly use your code or whether they need to implement their own alternative (either from scratch or based on a different solution on a different OSS product). To me, this sort of license change kind of reads as desperation.

by jaaron 6y ago

ywei3410 6y ago

The problem is that there are /two/ aims; one which people agree on, and the second which people disagree on. The first is source /must/ be available and /modifiable/; on that all proponents of FOSS are agreed; exactly for the reasons you've stated. The second is that we want /more/ FOSS software; not less. How we achieve that is essentially where people differ. The issue with big companies which contribute nothing or very little back to the ecosystem is the tragedy of the commons. Eventually, the number of people working on FOSS will dwindle and we won't /have/ FOSS alternatives or communities. For the record, I don't even think that AWS are the worst offenders. I've worked at places which refused to even contribute bug reports or patches to upstream systems.

xorcist 6y ago
How can we create more FOSS software by denying others the right to build on it? It would seem to me that this would lead to less open source, not more.
- hirose31 6y ago
  The license does not deny others the right to build on the software. The license is a fork of the AGPL and adds a clause that requires you to open source not only software, but supporting software that is used to run the service. One could argue that this license would result in more publicly available software, not less. Here is the clause for reference: > 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 Software or modified version.
  - xorcist 6y ago
    Right. But the point here wasn't that Amazon is doing something wrong in respect to the license. They release their modifications to Elastic, and they could theoretically release whatever "functionality" is required to "interact with the functionality of the Program". What was being argued was that it was ethically wrong of Amazon to engage in this business without some sort of blessing from (and, one would imagine, revenue sharing with) the original developers. Under that argument, their misdoing isn't releasing too little, but doing the work in the first place. Something like the AGPL can absolutely be a tool for more FOSS in the world. But I think there was two things being argued here.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Isinlor 6y ago

> A lot is made of the way Amazon is "taking advantage" of the license, but they aren't. They're doing exactly what is allowed, what anyone is allowed. Elastic is also not "taking advantage" of the license. Apache License 2.0 can be combined for example with GPLv3 or as in this case Server Side Public License. This is the freedom that Apache License 2.0 provides. Both companies do what they are allowed to do under the license. You may not like the freedoms that Apache 2.0 provides, but then you should not contribute to projects under that license. GPLv3 does not grant you the freedom to easily change license terms, so probably you should contribute to projects with that license or similar. > If their hosted service suffers, their new license ensures that no one else can compete. How does it ensure that no one can compete? If you release the infrastructure code you can compete.

jaaron 6y ago
It's true, Elastic can relicense as they see fit. I should perhaps do a bit better clarifying between: a) The code b) The community The issue is more that the open source work had been happening under the support and auspices of Elastic with a certain license. Elastic is relicensing and the rest of the community is within rights to not want to support Elastic's now non-open source fork.

JeremyNT 6y ago

It's a sticky situation, because while these restricted licenses are clearly worse for user freedom, they are also "better than nothing" if you assume there are too few volunteer contributors and funding sources for the paid employees to continue development. I would love to know whether these quazi-open licenses will be considered successful for the companies that switch to them. There's a short term cost here, in creating market confusion and fragmentation and general uncertainty - the potential benefits can only be realized down the road, a few years once the dust has settled and the offering has enough compelling improvements to what AWS gives. Are those benefits real? My intuition is that, if you consider yourself in the business of competing against an Amazon hosted version of your own software, you've already lost. Amazon will destroy you in the end, regardless of whether they can directly use your code or whether they need to implement their own alternative (either from scratch or based on a different solution on a different OSS product). To me, this sort of license change kind of reads as desperation.