5 ms·

I think ElasticSearch license change was biggest such change, as was discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657 https://news.ycom

I think ElasticSearch license change was biggest such change, as was discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657

pydry 3y ago
Their "obsession" with contributing isnt really in evidence on their fork: https://camo.githubusercontent.com/71f7e9147092c7d4b08df18da10b894b728b78e77e5e936a6427a7803b2865a0/68747470733a2f2f63646e2e747467746d656469612e636f6d2f726d732f6f6e6c696e65696d616765732f636c6f7564636f6d707574696e672d6769746875625f636f64655f636f6d6d6974732d662e706e67 https://camo.githubusercontent.com/71f7e9147092c7d4b08df18da... Worth bearing in mind that the only reason fork even exists was so that they didnt have to pay Elastic a cut when selling hosted ElasticSearch. If they cared about open source they could start by not undermining the business models of companies that do more than just pretend to support it.
- TravelPiglet 3y ago
  Having to pay for hosting an open source product? Isn’t Amazon doing what they should in this case where a company tries to block any competition.
  - pydry 3y ago
    No. Amazon was abusing their enormous market power to squeeze the company that made this software out of the market of hosting it. (Not to mention lying about "partnering" with them) If allowed to continue this would kill the project. If only Amazon can monetize it, it doesnt get developed. The open source project then dies. Amazon is no more doing the right thing here than they were when they destroyed diapers.com with a strategy of sustained predatory pricing. The fact that they want a pat on the back for being "pro open source" now after pulling this kind of crap is just icing on the cake.
- ryukafalz 3y ago
  They forked it when the upstream project switched to using a non-open-source license. This is a reasonable thing to do if your goal is to run FOSS and if you have the resources to maintain it. Notably, you could build GPL software on top of OpenSearch. You could not do so on top of ElasticSearch at the moment.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    switched to a non-open source licensing because AWS as leeching off the project, it was completely reasonable for ElesticSearch to change their licensing in the face of what AWS was going which while legal was IMO unethical
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Wasn't that license change after AWS started playing funny buggers with Elastic? So, Elastic then chose to change their license to try and counter it.
    - ryukafalz 3y ago
      By "playing funny buggers" do you mean "running the code for their customers"? The code whose license said this? > Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        So, I take it you're familiar with the history between those two then, and you're ignoring it for some reason? ;)
  - pydry 3y ago
    Amazon referring to it as "not open source" is a bit like Russia calling Crimea "Russian". This redefinition of open source is intended as a political statement - fighting against open source with restrictions. Especially so, it seems, if those restrictions promote the growth of open source. Elastic changed to a license that is completely open except insofar as it blocked Amazon from profiting from it. >Notably, you could build GPL software on top of OpenSearch. You could not do so on top of ElasticSearch. Notably you can't build MIT software based on GPL software either. This is 100% about MIT being a weak open source license with few restrictions and GPL being a strong open source license with restrictions. Not coincidentally the very-much-also-open-source-license GPL also had a history of infuriating big tech for exactly the same reason - they hate restrictions put in place designed to help open source flourish. E.g. Here's Google getting publicly grumpy about the AGPL: https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/ https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source...
detaro 3y ago
Not sure I'd count that as "EEE"? I guess in a way you could see "We can't compete with AWS at running our own software" as AWS "extending" it, but I don't think it is quite that?

I think ElasticSearch license change was biggest such change, as was discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776657

pydry 3y ago

Their "obsession" with contributing isnt really in evidence on their fork: https://camo.githubusercontent.com/71f7e9147092c7d4b08df18da10b894b728b78e77e5e936a6427a7803b2865a0/68747470733a2f2f63646e2e747467746d656469612e636f6d2f726d732f6f6e6c696e65696d616765732f636c6f7564636f6d707574696e672d6769746875625f636f64655f636f6d6d6974732d662e706e67 https://camo.githubusercontent.com/71f7e9147092c7d4b08df18da... Worth bearing in mind that the only reason fork even exists was so that they didnt have to pay Elastic a cut when selling hosted ElasticSearch. If they cared about open source they could start by not undermining the business models of companies that do more than just pretend to support it.

TravelPiglet 3y ago
Having to pay for hosting an open source product? Isn’t Amazon doing what they should in this case where a company tries to block any competition.
- pydry 3y ago
  No. Amazon was abusing their enormous market power to squeeze the company that made this software out of the market of hosting it. (Not to mention lying about "partnering" with them) If allowed to continue this would kill the project. If only Amazon can monetize it, it doesnt get developed. The open source project then dies. Amazon is no more doing the right thing here than they were when they destroyed diapers.com with a strategy of sustained predatory pricing. The fact that they want a pat on the back for being "pro open source" now after pulling this kind of crap is just icing on the cake.
ryukafalz 3y ago
They forked it when the upstream project switched to using a non-open-source license. This is a reasonable thing to do if your goal is to run FOSS and if you have the resources to maintain it. Notably, you could build GPL software on top of OpenSearch. You could not do so on top of ElasticSearch at the moment.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  switched to a non-open source licensing because AWS as leeching off the project, it was completely reasonable for ElesticSearch to change their licensing in the face of what AWS was going which while legal was IMO unethical
- justinclift 3y ago
  Wasn't that license change after AWS started playing funny buggers with Elastic? So, Elastic then chose to change their license to try and counter it.
  - ryukafalz 3y ago
    By "playing funny buggers" do you mean "running the code for their customers"? The code whose license said this? > Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      So, I take it you're familiar with the history between those two then, and you're ignoring it for some reason? ;)
- pydry 3y ago
  Amazon referring to it as "not open source" is a bit like Russia calling Crimea "Russian". This redefinition of open source is intended as a political statement - fighting against open source with restrictions. Especially so, it seems, if those restrictions promote the growth of open source. Elastic changed to a license that is completely open except insofar as it blocked Amazon from profiting from it. >Notably, you could build GPL software on top of OpenSearch. You could not do so on top of ElasticSearch. Notably you can't build MIT software based on GPL software either. This is 100% about MIT being a weak open source license with few restrictions and GPL being a strong open source license with restrictions. Not coincidentally the very-much-also-open-source-license GPL also had a history of infuriating big tech for exactly the same reason - they hate restrictions put in place designed to help open source flourish. E.g. Here's Google getting publicly grumpy about the AGPL: https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/ https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source...

detaro 3y ago

Not sure I'd count that as "EEE"? I guess in a way you could see "We can't compete with AWS at running our own software" as AWS "extending" it, but I don't think it is quite that?