3 ms·

> Under the license another company couldn't setup a replacement. I'm confused here -- the new 'open core' is available under the SSPL, which clearly allows th

> Under the license another company couldn't setup a replacement. I'm confused here -- the new 'open core' is available under the SSPL, which clearly allows this, as long as you provide the source code of any management layers as well. The non-open parts already weren't available under the Apache license, so nothing has really changed there. And, yes, this does mean Elastic is the only company able to build proprietary components on top of the code base, which means there isn't an even playing field with competitors. But once Elastic goes bankrupt this is no longer an issue.

growse 6y ago
> > Under the license another company couldn't setup a replacement. > I'm confused here -- the new 'open core' is available under the SSPL, which clearly allows this, as long as you provide the source code of any management layers as well. The non-open parts already weren't available under the Apache license, so nothing has really changed there. This is essentially a legal "gotcha", given that "management layers" is not defined anywhere. The purpose of the clause is not to encourage companies to "open source everything" (what does that even mean? Do they need to open source their IPMI firmware?), it's to prevent anyone from going anywhere near it. Do elastic.co open source all the management layers in their stack?
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  > The purpose of the clause is not to encourage companies to "open source everything" (what does that even mean? Do they need to open source their IPMI firmware?), it's to prevent anyone from going anywhere near it. Right. To make matters worse: it doesn't just require that all of the software used to run the service is open source, it requires that it be released under the SSPL. This immediately rules out using anything which you do not have the legal authority to relicense. So, for example, Linux. Quoting the SSPL (emphasis mine): > 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. ... > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.
- bramblerose 6y ago
  Thanks for explaining that, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't considered the terms would be effectively impossible to follow, even for a reuser/hoster with good intents.

growse 6y ago

> > Under the license another company couldn't setup a replacement. > I'm confused here -- the new 'open core' is available under the SSPL, which clearly allows this, as long as you provide the source code of any management layers as well. The non-open parts already weren't available under the Apache license, so nothing has really changed there. This is essentially a legal "gotcha", given that "management layers" is not defined anywhere. The purpose of the clause is not to encourage companies to "open source everything" (what does that even mean? Do they need to open source their IPMI firmware?), it's to prevent anyone from going anywhere near it. Do elastic.co open source all the management layers in their stack?

ryukafalz 6y ago
> The purpose of the clause is not to encourage companies to "open source everything" (what does that even mean? Do they need to open source their IPMI firmware?), it's to prevent anyone from going anywhere near it. Right. To make matters worse: it doesn't just require that all of the software used to run the service is open source, it requires that it be released under the SSPL. This immediately rules out using anything which you do not have the legal authority to relicense. So, for example, Linux. Quoting the SSPL (emphasis mine): > 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. ... > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.
bramblerose 6y ago
Thanks for explaining that, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't considered the terms would be effectively impossible to follow, even for a reuser/hoster with good intents.