3 ms·
I sympathize a lot with the licensing story of Caddy. /u/mholt has been a very active maintainer and participant in the larger Go community and has every right
by ben_jones 4y ago
I sympathize a lot with the licensing story of Caddy. /u/mholt has been a very active maintainer and participant in the larger Go community and has every right to create a commercial side to the project and receive compensation for their work.
But licensing is hard. AWS abused the leniency of Elasticsearch's original OSS license, so now the industry is set back 10 years with new entrants trying to find the balance between inviting community participation and getting gob smacked by big corporate interests.
Im not saying Elastic.co is an angel but its a lesson OSS projects have to take to heart, unfortunately. Thanks Amazon.
- djhaskin987 4y agoI think my favorite reaction to Amazon's aggression is Grafana Labs. They released their code under Affero GPL but let you use a different license if you pay them. Sort of like a new version of the Qt model.
- tsimionescu 4y agoAGPL does nothing to protect commercial projects from AWS. Look at MongoDB: they had been AGPL for a loooong time, but moved to a non-FOSS license specifically because of AWS. AWS has no problems with giving away the code for any managed-X service they. The magic that they charge for is the managed part - deployment, autoscaling, upgrade management, and other Operations stuff that no FOSS license can compel them to make public.
- djhaskin987 4y agoInteresting context, thank you.
- fs111 4y ago> AWS abused the leniency of Elasticsearch's original OSS license, They did not abuse anything. Elastic chose a license that allowed everything AWS did. It is Elastics problem if they don't understand licenses.