11–20 of 378 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s not copyright violation. it’s a license violation. they are completely different.
Copyright law is the basis for the legal enforcement of software licenses. License violations usually get pursued under copyright law
I have no issue with whatever license they choose, but let's be honest, its not about contributing back to these projects, its inserting a poison pill clause that they know cloud providers can't meet.
Specifically, by contributing back they mean, per the license: "If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the *Service Source Code* available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License."
Seems to me that they have no choice but to hard fork off of the last Apache-licensed release of Elasticsearch et al
I hope that SSPL becomes the standard for companies so that at least it becomes a known entity instead of a proliferation of bespoke licenses: like if CockroachDB moved to it as well. Personally, I'd rather see a more aggressive AGPL where REST calls are considered linking and trigger virality and I believe that would meet the definition of open source by the OSI while preserving the value of the commercial version.
> Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version.
Does this include services you don't charge for? For example I might offer services for marketing reasons. At what point is the service no longer primarily derived from the Program? For example if I build an application that offers query capabilities but does not expose the Program API, does that count?
For contrast GPL V2 worked because it tied virality to linking, which is pretty easy to validate.
What does it mean for Elasticsearch Service on AWS?
"protection against public cloud providers offering open source products as a service without contributing back". I have no issue with whatever license they choose, but let's be honest, its not about contributing back to these projects, its inserting a poison pill clause that they know cloud providers can't meet. Specifically, by contributing back they mean, per the license: "If you make the functionality of the Prog…
"protection against public cloud providers offering open source products as a service without contributing back". I have no issue with whatever license they choose, but let's be honest, its not about contributing back to these projects, its inserting a poison pill clause that they know cloud providers can't meet. Specifically, by contributing back they mean, per the license: "If you make the functionality of the Prog…
contributing back can mean monetarily. i’m sure elastic would be willing to sell a commercial license to a cloud provider if the deal makes sense.
I wonder where this leaves the AWS-sponsored Open Distro for Elasticsearch? ( https://opendistro.github.io/for-elasticsearch/ ) Seems to me that they have no choice but to hard fork off of the last Apache-licensed release of Elasticsearch et al
I wonder where this leaves the AWS-sponsored Open Distro for Elasticsearch? ( https://opendistro.github.io/for-elasticsearch/ ) Seems to me that they have no choice but to hard fork off of the last Apache-licensed release of Elasticsearch et al
It means that any “derivative work” will need to also open the management layer under SSPL. The management layer is AWS, so this puts OpenDistro in a tight spot. I’m not sure forking would work - as Elasticsearch evolves Amazon would not be able to copy features anymore. In the search space, this would be a very hard pill to swallow.