6 ms·

> Plan having a gaping hole instead? A hole which didn't exist in this way 10 years ago. But well you could have seen it coming tbh. > all the while acting as

> Plan having a gaping hole instead? A hole which didn't exist in this way 10 years ago. But well you could have seen it coming tbh. > all the while acting as if their license does not violate one of the core values on Open Source Definition So you are saying if you do open source you must be fine with being exploited? If so then why do GPL and similar exist, which are normally considered as Open Source? It's just that the landscape changed and with this the problems around it changed. While in the past bundling it into non free programs (+some committed aspects) was seen as a problem and as such GPL was created today the problem are similar but instead of distributing that bundles they are provided as managed services. In this context the Server Side Public License is as much in line with the core values of Open Source as GPL is. It's just that Amazon cares to some degree more about free software being free as in not costing them then they care about it being freely inspectable and modifiable. But cost free-ness was never a core value of Open Source, just a side effect.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
The hole did exist ten years ago, though. The AGPL was released in 2007, three years before Elasticsearch was created, to fix this exact problem. …except Elastic doesn't want to use the AGPL because anyone using Elasticsearch would have to open-source their whole codebase — a non-starter for most companies. Elastic wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want the wide adoption of open source software, while also preventing people from competing with them. That's not how open source works.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jeswin 6y ago
  > Elastic wants to have their cake and eat it too. That doesn't follow from your preceding statement. Elastic doesn't want to constrain all users of their software by using AGPL; and instead they adopted a license which imposes restrictions only on cloud providers. That's better compared to AGPL for general consumers, if you ask me.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Not if I am a cloud provider.
    - jasontedor 6y ago
      Jason from Elastic here. I want to clarify this. Building a SaaS product with Elasticsearch or Kibana on the backend is okay and not prohibited, as long the service is not “managed” Elasticsearch nor Kibana. For example, a music service that uses Elasticsearch on the backend to provide music catalog search is okay. A service that offers site search powered by Elasticsearch is okay. A log search service powered by Elasticsearch is okay (again, provided it doesn’t expose Elasticsearch functionality). We welcome applications built with Elasticsearch or Kibana in the backend, even those that would be seen as competitors, as long as they are not managed Elasticsearch nor Kibana services. The Elastic License allows this, and you can do it for free. See this [item][0] in our FAQ. If you have any doubt, reach out to elastic_license@elastic.co and we would be happy to clarify. Disclaimer: I am on the Elasticsearch team and work for Elastic; I welcome any and all feedback. [0]: https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#i-build-a-saas-application-using-elasticsearch-as-the-backend-how-does-this-affect-me https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#i-build-a-saas-...
      - snikolaev 6y ago
        Why didn't Elastic release some SSPL v1.1 or SSPl v2.0 with this kind of clarification? SSPL v1.0 is considered by many kind of vague in terms of p. 13 "Offering the Program as a Service".
      - Xylakant 6y ago
        What exactly does `provided it doesn’t expose Elasticsearch functionality` mean? Is exposing KQL via a search field in violation or not? Is exposing the Lucene query language okay or not? Is selling an on-prem monitoring solution that uses ES/Kibana as datastore and visualization interface ok? Is accepting payment from a client to run and maintain that solution in the clients datacenter okay? Is running that solution in a clients private cloud okay? Can I get that in writing from someone with the power to make binding legal statements? The problem is never in the clear cases, it’s in the edges. Now, all of a sudden, when thinking about features a legal dimension enters the picture, something that hasn’t been there before.
- turminal 6y ago
  Slightly off topic but... > …except Elastic doesn't want to use the AGPL because anyone using Elasticsearch would have to open-source their whole codebase — a non-starter for most companies. They wouldn't have to. This is a common misconception about AGPL.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Is the AGPL not a copyleft license? What are the derivative works you're required to distribute as AGPL?
    - viraptor 6y ago
      If you're using a database that's not tightly integrated into your project and distributed with it, I don't believe you'd have to open your project. The API is the boundary: - your project running on Linux kernel doesn't become GPL - your project talking to MySQL doesn't become GPL and one talking to mongodb pre-2018 doesn't become AGPL - your project talking to elasticsearch wouldn't become AGPL (However AWS search offering... could?)
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - tzs 6y ago
      AGPL is meant to address the situation where someone takes GPL code, such as a database server, runs it on their systems (possibly with proprietary modifications), and provides network access to it to users, and does not provide those users with the source code. That is perfectly acceptable under GPL, GPL doesn't trigger if you aren't distributing the program. What AGPL changed is that they made it trigger on distribution (like GPL) and on interactive access of modified versions over a network. If Amazon's plan had been to make money by hosting a proprietary fork of the server, which would give them some sort of advantage over other clouds like Azure or Google that only have the non-proprietary version, AGPL would thwart them. But that doesn't seem to be the case. They don't appear to trying to make it proprietary. They seem happy to run the same code that everyone else does. They are making money from it by selling management and support services for it. AGPL doesn't impede doing that at all.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  This FUD about the AGPL drives its unpopularity more than any reality.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Amazon is in compliance with the terms of the AGPL already for their managed ES. Switching ES to from Apache to AGPL would only affect other users of ES, not Amazon.
azernik 6y ago
GPL would not solve the problem Elastic has - it's perfectly legal (and in the spirit of the definition!) to take GPL software, host it yourself, sell the hosted service, and not pay the creator a cent. It's also perfectly legal to run GPL software on a Windows machine without open-sourcing Windows.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tebruno99 6y ago
If you actually do Open Source, you wouldn't feel exploited. You would feel happy that the terms you specified were honored.
cesaref 6y ago
`So you are saying if you do open source you must be fine with being exploited?` And how is a company using open source software exploitative? I mean, isn't that the point of releasing open source software, that companies use it? And aren't companies in the business of making money, so at some level, they are profiting from your work? Actually the opposite of open sourcing a system like this would be a massive fragmentation of the market with multiple competing proprietary systems emerging and total headaches for users with obsolescence a part of their daily lives. That is the grim alternative, not companies profiting from selling services based on open source software
xorcist 6y ago
> A hole which didn't exist in this way 10 years ago. Wordpress hosting was huge ten years ago.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

The hole did exist ten years ago, though. The AGPL was released in 2007, three years before Elasticsearch was created, to fix this exact problem. …except Elastic doesn't want to use the AGPL because anyone using Elasticsearch would have to open-source their whole codebase — a non-starter for most companies. Elastic wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want the wide adoption of open source software, while also preventing people from competing with them. That's not how open source works.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jeswin 6y ago
> Elastic wants to have their cake and eat it too. That doesn't follow from your preceding statement. Elastic doesn't want to constrain all users of their software by using AGPL; and instead they adopted a license which imposes restrictions only on cloud providers. That's better compared to AGPL for general consumers, if you ask me.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Not if I am a cloud provider.
  - jasontedor 6y ago
    Jason from Elastic here. I want to clarify this. Building a SaaS product with Elasticsearch or Kibana on the backend is okay and not prohibited, as long the service is not “managed” Elasticsearch nor Kibana. For example, a music service that uses Elasticsearch on the backend to provide music catalog search is okay. A service that offers site search powered by Elasticsearch is okay. A log search service powered by Elasticsearch is okay (again, provided it doesn’t expose Elasticsearch functionality). We welcome applications built with Elasticsearch or Kibana in the backend, even those that would be seen as competitors, as long as they are not managed Elasticsearch nor Kibana services. The Elastic License allows this, and you can do it for free. See this [item][0] in our FAQ. If you have any doubt, reach out to elastic_license@elastic.co and we would be happy to clarify. Disclaimer: I am on the Elasticsearch team and work for Elastic; I welcome any and all feedback. [0]: https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#i-build-a-saas-application-using-elasticsearch-as-the-backend-how-does-this-affect-me https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing#i-build-a-saas-...
    - snikolaev 6y ago
      Why didn't Elastic release some SSPL v1.1 or SSPl v2.0 with this kind of clarification? SSPL v1.0 is considered by many kind of vague in terms of p. 13 "Offering the Program as a Service".
    - Xylakant 6y ago
      What exactly does `provided it doesn’t expose Elasticsearch functionality` mean? Is exposing KQL via a search field in violation or not? Is exposing the Lucene query language okay or not? Is selling an on-prem monitoring solution that uses ES/Kibana as datastore and visualization interface ok? Is accepting payment from a client to run and maintain that solution in the clients datacenter okay? Is running that solution in a clients private cloud okay? Can I get that in writing from someone with the power to make binding legal statements? The problem is never in the clear cases, it’s in the edges. Now, all of a sudden, when thinking about features a legal dimension enters the picture, something that hasn’t been there before.
turminal 6y ago
Slightly off topic but... > …except Elastic doesn't want to use the AGPL because anyone using Elasticsearch would have to open-source their whole codebase — a non-starter for most companies. They wouldn't have to. This is a common misconception about AGPL.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Is the AGPL not a copyleft license? What are the derivative works you're required to distribute as AGPL?
  - viraptor 6y ago
    If you're using a database that's not tightly integrated into your project and distributed with it, I don't believe you'd have to open your project. The API is the boundary: - your project running on Linux kernel doesn't become GPL - your project talking to MySQL doesn't become GPL and one talking to mongodb pre-2018 doesn't become AGPL - your project talking to elasticsearch wouldn't become AGPL (However AWS search offering... could?)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - tzs 6y ago
    AGPL is meant to address the situation where someone takes GPL code, such as a database server, runs it on their systems (possibly with proprietary modifications), and provides network access to it to users, and does not provide those users with the source code. That is perfectly acceptable under GPL, GPL doesn't trigger if you aren't distributing the program. What AGPL changed is that they made it trigger on distribution (like GPL) and on interactive access of modified versions over a network. If Amazon's plan had been to make money by hosting a proprietary fork of the server, which would give them some sort of advantage over other clouds like Azure or Google that only have the non-proprietary version, AGPL would thwart them. But that doesn't seem to be the case. They don't appear to trying to make it proprietary. They seem happy to run the same code that everyone else does. They are making money from it by selling management and support services for it. AGPL doesn't impede doing that at all.
mr_toad 6y ago
This FUD about the AGPL drives its unpopularity more than any reality.
tsimionescu 6y ago
Amazon is in compliance with the terms of the AGPL already for their managed ES. Switching ES to from Apache to AGPL would only affect other users of ES, not Amazon.

azernik 6y ago

GPL would not solve the problem Elastic has - it's perfectly legal (and in the spirit of the definition!) to take GPL software, host it yourself, sell the hosted service, and not pay the creator a cent. It's also perfectly legal to run GPL software on a Windows machine without open-sourcing Windows.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tebruno99 6y ago

If you actually do Open Source, you wouldn't feel exploited. You would feel happy that the terms you specified were honored.

cesaref 6y ago

`So you are saying if you do open source you must be fine with being exploited?` And how is a company using open source software exploitative? I mean, isn't that the point of releasing open source software, that companies use it? And aren't companies in the business of making money, so at some level, they are profiting from your work? Actually the opposite of open sourcing a system like this would be a massive fragmentation of the market with multiple competing proprietary systems emerging and total headaches for users with obsolescence a part of their daily lives. That is the grim alternative, not companies profiting from selling services based on open source software

xorcist 6y ago

> A hole which didn't exist in this way 10 years ago. Wordpress hosting was huge ten years ago.