Live data from Hacker News

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

elastic.co

111–120 of 708 posts

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

#111
AWS is basically just rebranded open source on a centralized admin dashboard, there's an infographic somewhere breaking it down.

True genius is always making someone else's blood and sweat into a package that gracefully solves a big pain point and Amazon building up AWS has been nothing but genius.

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

#112

"And to be clear, this change most likely has zero effect on you, our users. It has no effect on our customers that engage with us either in cloud or on premises." No, that's just not true. So many users, from small hobby side-projects, to large open source projects, and mega-corps care about the licensing of dependencies, each for their own reason, and will not want to build on top of proprietary software that impos…

> It doesn't matter what they say, read the license.

I would love to but the terms within the ElasticSearch codebase on Github are quite confusing. Here's the text of the LICENCE.TXT file.

  Source code in this repository is covered by one of three licenses: (i) the
  Apache License 2.0 (ii) an Apache License 2.0 compatible license (iii) the
  Elastic License. The default license throughout the repository is Apache License
  2.0 unless the header specifies another license. Elastic Licensed code is found
  only in the x-pack directory.

  The build produces two sets of binaries - one set that falls under the Elastic
  License and another set that falls under Apache License 2.0. The binaries that
  contain `-oss` in the artifact name are licensed under Apache License 2.0 and
  these binaries do not package any code from the x-pack directory.
Aside from not showing copies of the applicable licenses, it seems you have to read the code headers to determine which source file has which license. There are a lot of ways to respond to competitive threats from Amazon, but this approach is increasingly chaotic the closer you look.

[1] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/master/LICENSE...

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

#113

They kinda do the same with Redis.

Redis itself is proper open source. There are a few modules, completely separate from the Redis code base, that aren't open source (even though Redis Labs will claim they are, like how Elastic claim Elasticsearch is open source).

The other non-open-source-but-wants-open-source-clout is Mongo.

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

#115
post #32

Their license literally says they have the right to use this code as they're doing, shouldn't be mad at them for that. Imagine putting a sign on your lawn that says people can walk on your lawn and are even allowed to poop on it if they feel like it and then getting mad at them when they do so. That being said, I support their right to change their license to whatever they like if it helps them survive as a business…

I don't believe the issue most are taking here is the license itself that elasticsearch now has, I think its the relicensing of existing contributions (ironically including those from AWS and their employees) which were originally under a true, well-accepted and liberal FOSS license. If elasticsearch had this license from day one, that would be fair enough, but many people do not freely contribute time and effort to…

[deleted]

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

#116
This blog post strikes me as poorly written, overly emotional, and light on reasons to care. While not Amazon-sized, Elastic is itself a rather large company. Am I supposed to be upset that you're having difficulty getting even larger because of Amazon? Considering you're the experts on this product, shouldn't you be confident in your ability to differentiate from someone offering it as an afterthought? If anything, Amazon's poor support of their Elastic offering amounts to lead gen for a properly run solution. Finally, feel free to change your license now that your original license is no longer conducive to your growth aspirations, but whining that "not OK" Amazon forced you to do it just comes across as sour grapes.

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

#117
post #79
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OSI does not have a trademark on the term open source, they tried and failed to acquire one.

I think they need one. Comically, this is why trademarks exist to prevent people from confusing the market with similar and reused terms. I think we need a CreativeCommons-like trademark for open source software before it’s too late.

I think there are valid differences in opinion in what “open source” means and an organization with an agenda shouldn’t try to own the terminology.

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

#118
post #45

This is fine. No seriously. Hear me out. If you are a proponent of capitalism then this is how the system works. The little fish grow into big fish. The big fish eat the little fish. The ecosystem suffers. It has always been this way. Many of us remember Microsoft in the nineties. Fewer will remember the phone or oil industry doing the same. Don’t fight this issue. Fight the system that tolerates this pattern. Money…

There are no better alternatives. And about the ElasticSearch, they should have just used a different license.

Reflecting on this more I think capitalism is the wrong word. Completely unregulated markets is what is really the issue. It leads to the incumbents extracting all the profit and then using their monopoly position to extract rents for the next few decades.

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

#119
The cringe on this thread is appalling.

Elasticsearch B.V. owes you nothing. The source code is still open source, but you should pay for re-selling or providing hosting services around it. They have salaries to pay. Period.

Too many open source "believers" find themselves out of pocket, taking time away from their families and lives, only for companies like Amazaon and other WAANKs out there to make billions in profit. Time for this to stop. Starve them of your hard work and make them pay if they want to use your software. For sharing knowledge, code can still be freely readable, but should not be free of charge.

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

#120
post #80

"And to be clear, this change most likely has zero effect on you, our users. It has no effect on our customers that engage with us either in cloud or on premises." No, that's just not true. So many users, from small hobby side-projects, to large open source projects, and mega-corps care about the licensing of dependencies, each for their own reason, and will not want to build on top of proprietary software that impos…

So what should we be using instead of elasticsearch for logs? To mitigate that licensing risk?

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Seagate+BarraCuda&ref=nb_sb_noss_...

&

grep ( with parallel )

...if it matches your use case, you'll find it trivially outperforms elasticsearch.

Post reply on HN