6 ms·

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 ha

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    So, I take it you're familiar with the history between those two then, and you're ignoring it for some reason? ;)
pydry 4y 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...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It was changed to a license that is completely open except insofar as it blocked Amazon from profiting from it. It didn’t just block Amazon, and even if it did, selectively blocking a single downstream commercial user would make it not open source. The freedom of third-party competitive commercial downstream use is a guarantee against effective vendor lock in, and it is one of the important reasons to choose open source solutions. Does that make it hard to monetize development of software by just rent-seeking in the “we don’t want to expend the effort to host our own things” SaaS market with a hosted implementation? Yes, but, too bad.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >It didn’t just block Amazon No, I guess it also blocked google, oracle, etc. from monetizing their work without sharing the proceeds from the quite considerable profits they make (something they seem happy to do). Didnt block anybody else though, as you well know. Any regular user of Elastic faced 0 additional restrictions. >Does that make it hard to monetize development of software No. As Amazon demonstrates the software can still be monetized by the most powerful rent seeking players in the market like Amazon. Does it make it hard for the companies not running monopolistic rent machines that actually build open source? Yes. MUCH harder. It would have killed elastic. >too bad. Yes, too bad for open source. You can be anti open source if you like (it has made a lot of people mad, not just MSFT and Amazon) but don't try to dress it up.

phpisthebest 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  So, I take it you're familiar with the history between those two then, and you're ignoring it for some reason? ;)

pydry 4y 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...

dragonwriter 4y ago
> It was changed to a license that is completely open except insofar as it blocked Amazon from profiting from it. It didn’t just block Amazon, and even if it did, selectively blocking a single downstream commercial user would make it not open source. The freedom of third-party competitive commercial downstream use is a guarantee against effective vendor lock in, and it is one of the important reasons to choose open source solutions. Does that make it hard to monetize development of software by just rent-seeking in the “we don’t want to expend the effort to host our own things” SaaS market with a hosted implementation? Yes, but, too bad.
- pydry 4y ago
  >It didn’t just block Amazon No, I guess it also blocked google, oracle, etc. from monetizing their work without sharing the proceeds from the quite considerable profits they make (something they seem happy to do). Didnt block anybody else though, as you well know. Any regular user of Elastic faced 0 additional restrictions. >Does that make it hard to monetize development of software No. As Amazon demonstrates the software can still be monetized by the most powerful rent seeking players in the market like Amazon. Does it make it hard for the companies not running monopolistic rent machines that actually build open source? Yes. MUCH harder. It would have killed elastic. >too bad. Yes, too bad for open source. You can be anti open source if you like (it has made a lot of people mad, not just MSFT and Amazon) but don't try to dress it up.