4 ms·

That is not open source. That is source available. The SSPL is not an open source license.

• kyriakos 5y ago
  It's a matter of interpretation really and more of the perspective of the reasons you require something to have its source code available. For example if you just need to be able to scrutinize the code for security purposes then it's good enough.
  • taf2 5y ago
    This looks pretty closed source to me: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/master/x-pack/plugin/ml/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/xpack/ml/aggs/DoubleArray.java https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/master/x-pack/...
  • mixedCase 5y ago
    That's what "source available" means. Open Source is a much stricter definition, which includes not discriminating what your user is going to do with the software. From https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
    • altdataseller 5y ago
      For a lot of developers, there is no practical difference because they are not building a managed service around Elasticsearch (like Amazon is). They are using it for their own private, commercial purposes, whatever it may be.
      • maccolgan 5y ago
        That doesn't magically make it open source
        • altdataseller 5y ago
          OK, sure it's not open source then. Most people don't care.
          • mixedCase 5y ago
            Elasticsearch is a tool aimed at software developers. A number pretty close to 100% of its userbase should care about licenses.
            • altdataseller 5y ago
              Should and do are 2 completely different things.