4 ms·

Then Elastic should've come up with a non-Apache-2.0 license at inception. Licenses exist for a reason. The onus is on the person choosing the license to choos

Then Elastic should've come up with a non-Apache-2.0 license at inception. Licenses exist for a reason. The onus is on the person choosing the license to choose one which aligns with their intentions. You cannot and should not expect downstream consumers of the software to confine themselves to some subset of the actual license's allowed activities just because it's the "nice" thing to do (as of course this assumes morality is in any way objective).

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
And frankly, I don't even buy the morality argument. It is a moral good to provide value to customers such that they voluntarily choose to give you money in exchange for that value. These people have this bizarre fusion of capitalist and communist reasoning, I really can't reconcile it. On the one hand they seem to think profit is fundamentally evil, but on the other hand they seem to think the problem is that Elastic isn't being allowed to monopolize all the profit. Well, which is it? Did Elastic release non-restrictively-licensed free software out of the goodness of their hearts, giving it away with no expectation of a return? Or did they create this codebase purely for profit, and thus have no claim to moral highground? It's all so silly and childish. And the biggest irony is, Elastic is already a successful business. They're trying to pretend their business model is not viable as long as Amazon keeps operating, which is just gaslighting.
hanniabu 6y ago
What open source license would prevent someone from capitalizing on your project?
- Phrodo_00 6y ago
  No open source license prevents people from capitalizing your project. Adding a non-commercial clause to an OSS license makes it not comply with OSS anymore. Preventing companies from hosting the software with propietary changes can be done with licenses like the AGPL, but again, the objective is not to disallow commercial use, but rather to force the source code to be available for the users of the software.
- fastball 6y ago
  None. That's... kinda the point of OSS.
dodobirdlord 6y ago
They made a mistake with their original licensing, and now they have corrected it. The comments on this post seem strangely invested in Elastic not fixing their mistake.
- fastball 6y ago
  Right but "who is wrong" is what the disagreement is about, and if Elastic made the mistake then arguably it is them who are wrong. In contrast, a number of people here are acting as if AWS is totally in the wrong. But the only wrong here is Elastic making the mistake and then acting as if the whole thing is AWS' fault. No, if you license your software improperly that's on you, not anyone else.
  - hrktb 6y ago
    Does it need to be a binary thing ? Elastic made a strategic mistake, and Amazon made the jerk move that was open to them.
    - eloisant 6y ago
      I don't see how AWS is being a jerk. They're a hosting company, they're hosting open source software and they're doing it well.
    - kevincox 6y ago
      What about Elastic making the "jerk move" by switching the license under Amazon? Amazon built the product with the hope that it would continue to be developed with that license. What are they supposed to do with the license change? Just accept whatever Elastic said? I don't think you can blame them for taking the last version where they agreed with the license and continue to use and develop it. Sure, maybe making it open is a bit of a jab back, but even in isolation it makes sense for them.
      - Xylakant 6y ago
        > What about Elastic making the "jerk move" by switching the license under Amazon? They’re also switching out the license under everyone else. It’s maybe notable that elastics cloud offering was acquired at some point (it used to be found.io). I used to do elasticsearch consulting and I could name a few customers that will now have to reevaluate their product.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

And frankly, I don't even buy the morality argument. It is a moral good to provide value to customers such that they voluntarily choose to give you money in exchange for that value. These people have this bizarre fusion of capitalist and communist reasoning, I really can't reconcile it. On the one hand they seem to think profit is fundamentally evil, but on the other hand they seem to think the problem is that Elastic isn't being allowed to monopolize all the profit. Well, which is it? Did Elastic release non-restrictively-licensed free software out of the goodness of their hearts, giving it away with no expectation of a return? Or did they create this codebase purely for profit, and thus have no claim to moral highground? It's all so silly and childish. And the biggest irony is, Elastic is already a successful business. They're trying to pretend their business model is not viable as long as Amazon keeps operating, which is just gaslighting.

hanniabu 6y ago

What open source license would prevent someone from capitalizing on your project?

Phrodo_00 6y ago
No open source license prevents people from capitalizing your project. Adding a non-commercial clause to an OSS license makes it not comply with OSS anymore. Preventing companies from hosting the software with propietary changes can be done with licenses like the AGPL, but again, the objective is not to disallow commercial use, but rather to force the source code to be available for the users of the software.
fastball 6y ago
None. That's... kinda the point of OSS.

dodobirdlord 6y ago

They made a mistake with their original licensing, and now they have corrected it. The comments on this post seem strangely invested in Elastic not fixing their mistake.

fastball 6y ago
Right but "who is wrong" is what the disagreement is about, and if Elastic made the mistake then arguably it is them who are wrong. In contrast, a number of people here are acting as if AWS is totally in the wrong. But the only wrong here is Elastic making the mistake and then acting as if the whole thing is AWS' fault. No, if you license your software improperly that's on you, not anyone else.
- hrktb 6y ago
  Does it need to be a binary thing ? Elastic made a strategic mistake, and Amazon made the jerk move that was open to them.
  - eloisant 6y ago
    I don't see how AWS is being a jerk. They're a hosting company, they're hosting open source software and they're doing it well.
  - kevincox 6y ago
    What about Elastic making the "jerk move" by switching the license under Amazon? Amazon built the product with the hope that it would continue to be developed with that license. What are they supposed to do with the license change? Just accept whatever Elastic said? I don't think you can blame them for taking the last version where they agreed with the license and continue to use and develop it. Sure, maybe making it open is a bit of a jab back, but even in isolation it makes sense for them.
    - Xylakant 6y ago
      > What about Elastic making the "jerk move" by switching the license under Amazon? They’re also switching out the license under everyone else. It’s maybe notable that elastics cloud offering was acquired at some point (it used to be found.io). I used to do elasticsearch consulting and I could name a few customers that will now have to reevaluate their product.