Live data from Hacker News

Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

elastic.co

21–30 of 708 posts

Re: Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

#21
post #2

I assume the trademark thing should be a slam dunk? That seems like the most blatant trademark violation ever.

It seems to me (not a lawyer) that “Amazon Elastic Search Service” would be OK in a way that “Amazon Elasticsearch Service” would not.

(AWS had EC2 before Elastic’s trademark was registered.)

Re: Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

#24
post #17
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the point. There is legal and there is good - and simply reiterating that something is legal is unproductive and pointless.

I don't think the person you are replying to is making any kind of argument about legality. I think they are saying that when you tell people something is acceptable, then they can only assume it actually is acceptable to you.

Exactly, what Amazon did isn't just legal, it is explicitly specified as OK by the license that the elastic search team selected for their code.

Re: Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

#25
Elastic was an open source project, and now it's not. This was done because they believe it will be more profitable. It does affect you, especially if you contributed to the project, in which case they're basically spitting in your face as thanks for your hard work. This is not materially different from when Oracle infamously killed OpenSolaris, something they were rightfully crucified for by the community.

They're not wrong about Amazon misinformation, use of trademarks, and so on, and should have pursued the legal remedies for this more deeply. Called them out publically, and shamed them like this post attempts to do. But, if it didn't work, tough shit. It has nothing to do with the license. They made a contrat with their community when they choose an open source license.

>We created Elasticsearch; we care about it more than anyone else.

No, you didn't. Elasticsearch is the combined work of thousands of contributors.

Aside: using "Free & Open" in your messaging is a pretty low move, deliberately designed to mislead users.

Re: Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

#26
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I would be much happier that. I do not even understand why to do this whole dance with Elastic.

A lot of people have adopted the Elastic stack over the years, I guess Amazon just wanted their share.

I think most people just wanted Amazon to take the administrative overhead away from them. Amazon saw that gap.

Re: Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

#27
post #17
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the point. There is legal and there is good - and simply reiterating that something is legal is unproductive and pointless.

I don't think the person you are replying to is making any kind of argument about legality. I think they are saying that when you tell people something is acceptable, then they can only assume it actually is acceptable to you.

> I think they are saying that when you tell people something is acceptable, then they can only assume it actually is acceptable to you.

I think that is false. Most things that are said assume that the listener will self-moderate. If I have Crohn's or IBS and I post a sign on my front-lawn saying "bathroom free to use for those in need" I'm not expecting you to pull up a tour-bus full of tourists, move into it and use it as housing, or a sex den for turning tricks. I mean, I should clarify my sign, but honestly if you don't meet me half-way with self-moderation, you are the reason we can't have nice things.

Above all, make sure you always leave money on the table, _especially_ if you are the bigger party.

Re: Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

#28
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I would be much happier that. I do not even understand why to do this whole dance with Elastic.

A lot of people have adopted the Elastic stack over the years, I guess Amazon just wanted their share.

Sure thing. That's the reason for many services they created.

But they usually tend to build their own alternative that integrates better into their eco-system.

Re: Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

#30
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. AWS should build a real serverless alternative to it or buy Algolia or something...

Yes, I would be much happier that. I do not even understand why to do this whole dance with Elastic.

Same. But there is nothing preventing doing that and running a fork of Elastic, it's cheap enough.

I would do the same if I were AWS.

Post reply on HN