4 ms·

People also seem to miss a point when trying to invoke the "Spirit of the Open Source License": The only reason why Elastic is changing their license is because

People also seem to miss a point when trying to invoke the "Spirit of the Open Source License": The only reason why Elastic is changing their license is because they want to profit from it. So, isn't that exactly against the "Spirit of Open Source License"? If they truly cared about that, they should be angry about it at all. Choosing sides here seems to be choosing between two profit seeking companies. Why, as a developer, you should take a side?

cosmiccatnap 6y ago
Profit is a strong word. You can't continue to improve the project without paying people so what you are really saying here is that people should build aws products for free as non-amazon employees. There is a big difference in paying to keep the lights on and making millions a day on someone else's product. It's likely amazon has more employees working on Amazon's flavor of elastic cache than elaaticache has. The difference is that aws doesn't commit it's improvements or work back into the elaaticache project meaning the relationship is parasitic. I can't blame elaaticache for what they did anymore than I can blame aws for trying to make money but if you want products in the future to be with people's time to make and built like elaaticache from the ground up to fill a need for free you have to find ways to protect them from predatory practices and if that isn't in the current licencing model then we need a GPLv4 to address those concerns. The argument people are making is a simple one. Yes they can do this but it's clearly not what the intention of these licenses are and therefore we need to chance the licenses to address scenarios where the code is used to harm the individuals who produced it.
rstupek 6y ago
I as a developer take the side that allows me to use the open source code as I see fit based on the license terms provided. Elastic initially chose a license which would allow them to capture more of the market/mind space of developers and now that they've accomplished that they want to fully monetize those developers.

cosmiccatnap 6y ago

Profit is a strong word. You can't continue to improve the project without paying people so what you are really saying here is that people should build aws products for free as non-amazon employees. There is a big difference in paying to keep the lights on and making millions a day on someone else's product. It's likely amazon has more employees working on Amazon's flavor of elastic cache than elaaticache has. The difference is that aws doesn't commit it's improvements or work back into the elaaticache project meaning the relationship is parasitic. I can't blame elaaticache for what they did anymore than I can blame aws for trying to make money but if you want products in the future to be with people's time to make and built like elaaticache from the ground up to fill a need for free you have to find ways to protect them from predatory practices and if that isn't in the current licencing model then we need a GPLv4 to address those concerns. The argument people are making is a simple one. Yes they can do this but it's clearly not what the intention of these licenses are and therefore we need to chance the licenses to address scenarios where the code is used to harm the individuals who produced it.

rstupek 6y ago

I as a developer take the side that allows me to use the open source code as I see fit based on the license terms provided. Elastic initially chose a license which would allow them to capture more of the market/mind space of developers and now that they've accomplished that they want to fully monetize those developers.