Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

elastic.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 378 posts

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#331

Post by robcowart »

PeterZaitsev wrote: post #78
robcowart wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can't really happen. While Elasticsearch was previously released under the Apache 2.0 license, it was still "owned" by Elastic. Lucene on the other hand, is "owned" by the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). While companies can build products based on Lucene, which they release under their own choice of License, they cannot change the Lucene license itself. Only the ASF can do that. Another example of this is Kafk…

What you're really saying is you should have more trust to foundation governed Open Source because it is less likely it will change a license

"Trust" may be too strong of a word. I would say that one should expect more consistent and predictable behavior from a foundation. I have however seen some questionable actions in the name of the ASF, where the motivations were obviously influenced by project committee members with a commercial interest.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#332

Post by shawnz »

zaarn wrote: post #306
shawnz wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does SSPL satisfy GNU's "freedom 0", to run the program for any purpose?

In the same way the AGPL satisfies it, you can run it for any purpose if you provide the source code to users.

Well, the linked page indicated that copyleft is something that applies only to distribution and not use, but I guess the AGPL shows that that's not true.

Nonetheless I don't agree with the GNU's claim that copyleft doesn't reduce freedoms. Of course a permissive license provides more freedoms: it's right there in the name

But this issue isn't really about permissive vs copyleft licensing anyway: Had Apache used a copyleft license with Lucene, Elasticsearch would have never existed.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#333

Post by zaarn »

shawnz wrote: post #332
zaarn wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same way the AGPL satisfies it, you can run it for any purpose if you provide the source code to users.

Well, the linked page indicated that copyleft is something that applies only to distribution and not use, but I guess the AGPL shows that that's not true. Nonetheless I don't agree with the GNU's claim that copyleft doesn't reduce freedoms. Of course a permissive license provides more freedoms: it's right there in the name But this issue isn't really about permissive vs copyleft licensing anyway: Had Apache used a co…

But Amazon is hardly offering Lucene as a SaaS offering, don't they?

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#334

Post by shawnz »

zaarn wrote: post #333
shawnz wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the linked page indicated that copyleft is something that applies only to distribution and not use, but I guess the AGPL shows that that's not true. Nonetheless I don't agree with the GNU's claim that copyleft doesn't reduce freedoms. Of course a permissive license provides more freedoms: it's right there in the name But this issue isn't really about permissive vs copyleft licensing anyway: Had Apache used a co…

But Amazon is hardly offering Lucene as a SaaS offering, don't they?

If they did, should that mean Elasticsearch can't?

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#335

Post by zaarn »

shawnz wrote: post #334
zaarn wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Amazon is hardly offering Lucene as a SaaS offering, don't they?

If they did, should that mean Elasticsearch can't?

I don't see the point there.

Lucene is a library, you can hardly offer it as SaaS. It's gluework.

On the other hand, Elastic is much more enduser software, which is much more routinely abused for SaaS hosting by larger corporations.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#336

Post by catern »

Bedon292 wrote: post #302
catern wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such businesses can continue providing their service, they just have to provide the code to their users.

Publicly release, not just to their users.

Technically, they only have to provide it to their users, but they have to give their users the freedom to redistribute it.

But yes that's effectively publicly releasing it.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#337

Post by nopzor »

dhd415 wrote: post #57
nopzor wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at grafana labs, we are still pretty torn on what our go forward licensing regime should be. bsl is interesting, but license proliferation and familiarity is a big factor to consider. now that both elastic and mongo are both using sspl, it is more appealing. i think tsl from timescale is also a great and well thought out license.

Interesting. I got the impression from the recent announcement that Grafana Labs had something of a revenue sharing model with the new AWS managed offering of Grafana. Given that, I wouldn't think the SSPL restrictions would be as important.

we do indeed have a partnership with aws around grafana. but the cloud landscape goes beyond aws, and the grafana labs landscape goes beyond grafana itself.

it's definitely a nuanced discussion internally.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#338

Post by jen20 »

ecnahc515 wrote: post #255
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t getting logs from some AWS service into Elastic’s hosted service (or anything not in AWS) be really expensive at scale though?

I believe they have an option so you can peer your VPC to their hosted offering's VPC, so logs from within your VPC don't have the typical expensive AWS internet egress/ingress costs.

While cheaper, traffic over a VPC peering is still not free.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#339

Post by ignoramous »

ForHackernews wrote: post #329
ignoramous wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSPL is a malicious source-available license, if there ever was one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 I reserve special hate for Commons Clause [0] too but SSPL is downright offensive . A reminder that F/OSS works very well for a lot of reasons [1]. The number one of which is if you want to commodize your product's complement [2][3]. Don't be a knob and F/OSS your core product if you plan to make billion…

HN: "Hey, you're not using an FLOSS license!" Also HN: Don't be a knob and F/OSS your core product if you plan to make billions or whatever. They're doing exactly you want: picking a non-free license for their core product, and you're still mad at them.

Not upset because they choose SSPL but because:

1. Avarice: They rode the FOSS wave and gained industry mindshare for a conveniently long time. Now, after making (well deserved) millions on the back of it, they turn to an absurd license to basically say, fuck you, looser, I need my billions.

2. Hypocrisy: Spinning the whole thing as "doubling down on Open" with a source-available license. One must be so delusional to call out "naysayers" as spreading FUD about SSPL when the fact remains that SSPL is a landmine.

3. Short-termism: It is all fun and games till Elasticsearch is wealthy and healthy. Once some PE firm takes over when they get pushed into a corner, I can see them doing Oracle-esque law suites even if it isn't their current intention.

If their core product was Elasticsearch, they could have SSPLd it from the start. I'd be curious to see where they'd have ended up then. I'd absolutely not have been upset in this scenario.

The current scenario is what we are in, lets see how it pans out.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#340

Post by erezsh »

andreareina wrote: post #305
erezsh wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only entity who says it's not "open source" is the OSI, which is mostly funded by corporations, who are in the business of cloud computing.

Both the Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] and the GNU Free Software Definition proscribe limiting fields of endeavor. The OSD[3] borrows heavily from the DFSG. I remember reading (alas, I can't find my source) a spokesperson for the OSI admitting to the existence of licenses that meet the OSD that they don't want to be OSI-approved because they don't add enough value versus the cost of proliferation of licenses tha…

These definitions were written a long ago, in a time when cloud computing wasn't even a buzzword yet.

But I read them and couldn't find anything addressing fields of endeavor. GNU's "four essential freedoms", which imho are a little naive in retrospect, don't say anything about this. They say anyone should be able to "sell copies", but SSPL doesn't disallow this either.

Debian obviously didn't address it either. They clarify: " They can even try to sell it. In practice, it costs essentially no money to make electronic copies of software. Supply and demand will keep the cost down."

I.e. they only allowed it because they thought the free market will take care of it, and didn't imagine how cloud provides will become monopolies of access.

"As a result, you can buy a Debian release on several CDs for just a few USD." - Lol.. that's like trying to apply lessons from the bible to modern life.

Just to broaden the discussion, "fields of endeavor" doesn't just mean cloud services, but also whether you can prevent your software from being used in weapons, or other such morally objectionable applications.

Post reply on HN