4 ms·

Elastic explicitly addresses the question of open source in their FAQ: https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#does-this-mean-that-elasticsearch-and-kiban

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.

fabianhjr 6y ago
> 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. Copyfarleft[1] has been discussed for almost a decade now and has spinoffs like Copyfair[2]. > 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. There is definitely a gray area there but the comment I originally replied to naively equated open source with the more permissive licenses. > They were allowed to do this, by the letter of the law, but it is fucked up regardless. I am not convinced that "it is fucked up". [1]: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft [2]: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfair http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfair
- ddevault 6y ago
  >Copyfarleft[1] has been discussed for almost a decade now and has spinoffs like Copyfair[2]. But not in the context of open source. At no point have any of these licenses made a successful bid for qualification under the OSD.
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    The only criticism I would levy is that those licenses haven't been polished by time nor copyright-license-experienced lawyers. Their recognition from FSF/OSI is not their goal and and argumnt can be made that copyfarleft / copyfair pushes the boundaries of open/free/libre source software so they might not pursue recognition from the get go.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      I don't think that these licenses are relevant. If we can agree that they are not open source, then we can agree to the point I'm trying to make: changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong.
      - fabianhjr 6y ago
        I don't agree that they are not open source, I only agreed that it is a gray area and even on the previous comment mentioned that it is "pushing the boundaries". For eg, I maintain an "awesome-copyfarleft" list: https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft > changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong. I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc.
        ddevault 6y ago

fabianhjr 6y ago

> 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. Copyfarleft[1] has been discussed for almost a decade now and has spinoffs like Copyfair[2]. > 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. There is definitely a gray area there but the comment I originally replied to naively equated open source with the more permissive licenses. > They were allowed to do this, by the letter of the law, but it is fucked up regardless. I am not convinced that "it is fucked up". [1]: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft [2]: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfair http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfair

ddevault 6y ago
>Copyfarleft[1] has been discussed for almost a decade now and has spinoffs like Copyfair[2]. But not in the context of open source. At no point have any of these licenses made a successful bid for qualification under the OSD.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  The only criticism I would levy is that those licenses haven't been polished by time nor copyright-license-experienced lawyers. Their recognition from FSF/OSI is not their goal and and argumnt can be made that copyfarleft / copyfair pushes the boundaries of open/free/libre source software so they might not pursue recognition from the get go.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    I don't think that these licenses are relevant. If we can agree that they are not open source, then we can agree to the point I'm trying to make: changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong.
    - fabianhjr 6y ago
      I don't agree that they are not open source, I only agreed that it is a gray area and even on the previous comment mentioned that it is "pushing the boundaries". For eg, I maintain an "awesome-copyfarleft" list: https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft > changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong. I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc.
      - ddevault 6y ago