3 ms·
I can see why they would relicense Grafana this way, but why Loki? It's a fairly immature product that needs the boost of a less restrictive license IMO. I'm
by candiddevmike 6y ago
I can see why they would relicense Grafana this way, but why Loki? It's a fairly immature product that needs the boost of a less restrictive license IMO. I'm worried this will harm the adoption of it compared to the ES ecosystem (OpenSearch in particular) and we won't see it used for anything beyond Grafana.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y agoPopularity can increase rapidly, and if they do it too late, Amazon will screw them just like they did with Elastic.
- sojsurf 6y agoCounter opinion: I don't want to host Elasticsearch myself, which is why I pay Elastic to host several clusters. That said, I really don't want to be locked into a single-vendor situation, which is what Elastic is realistically aiming for. I am 100% glad that Amazon forked ES, because it preserves the benefits of using an open source stack. I still have a choice of hosted providers. In my opinion, the amazon fork is much more likely to lead to a healthy ecosystem of hosted ES providers than the Elasticsearch version.
- josephcsible 6y agoI wish people would stop equating what Grafana did with what Elastic did. Grafana switched from one FOSS license to another. Elastic switched from a FOSS license to a proprietary license.