191–200 of 708 posts
That way Amazon couldn’t use their code to provide a SaaS until after 4 years and after that time it would be business as usual and be proper open source.
The license they used now is forever non-opensource, which is a much larger change than what’s merited here I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a lawyer either, but as I understand it, a trademark is violated if it's likely to confuse people into thinking the product/service is from the trademark holder when it actually isn't. If Amazon's CEO experienced such confusion himself, that does sound like a slam dunk to me. FTA: When the service launched, imagine our surprise when the Amazon CTO tweeted that the service was released in collaboration with us…
It does seem tricky. On on hand, they want to stop AWS using "Elasticsearch" in a product name because it isn't in partnership with Elastic co., but on the other hand AWS's product really does contain Elasticsearch, which is why they are changing their license. If AWS had a product called "Elasticsearch Service" which didn't contain Elasticsearch, then it would be pretty clear cut as that would be very confusing, but…
Apart from the general consternation about an OSS license becoming non-OSS, can we also talk about the problem that companies are formed, invest a whole lot of resources into creating a product, open-source it, and then have Amazon eat into their profits by just installing and maintaining that product as a service? No matter how you slice it, I think Amazon is bad for us end-users, and Elastic is good. Elastic could…
Except elasticsearch was created before the company Elastic even existed. They couldn’t have released it as closed source because they weren’t there to release it at all.
It was written by one guy and it was based on previous open source code in Lucene.
I am ok with them making money off their project, but it isn’t like they are owed a billion dollar company for their work.
I don't think most of Amazon's behavior actually violates any norms and values of traditional open source communities. I think instead we are finding that norms and values of traditional open source communities are in some ways contradictory/inconsistent; that there can be competing interests where it isn't true that either one of them is the one that "opensource norms and values" privileges; or that the traditional…
Amazon doesn't give back to open source maintainers at all. They take and take with no return. This isn't normal in the open source community.
But even if they contributed nothing at all, that’s part of open source in that it’s free for everyone to use regardless of anything else, depending on the license.
I think it’s a virtuous byproduct that all this free, allowed use leads to people contributing more open source. Not because of compulsion, but through a shared philosophy.
[0] https://aws.amazon.com/opensource/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9358843
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is incompatible with non-Affero GPL?
Yes, it's incompatible, although you might be fine if you aren't distributing it or running it as a service. SSPL requires re-licensing of all code to the SSPL, GPL has provisions that disallow re-licensing. > the simple requirement that if you provide the product as a service, you must also publicly release any modifications as well as the source code of your management layers under SSPL This provision is effectivel…
"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…
Going forward the repository will have a dual-license and the top image on https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing can hopefully explain that better.
[Disclaimer: I work for Elastic]
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,…
Apart from the general consternation about an OSS license becoming non-OSS, can we also talk about the problem that companies are formed, invest a whole lot of resources into creating a product, open-source it, and then have Amazon eat into their profits by just installing and maintaining that product as a service? No matter how you slice it, I think Amazon is bad for us end-users, and Elastic is good. Elastic could…
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 n…
"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…
The problem of the known open source licenses (vs this no-precedent one) is that they were made long time ago for other situations and they do a poor job at protecting open source authors from the abuse that we see from Amazon and similar.
Personally, I don't think so, and I think I should have the right to do so. I wonder how this is different from Amazon behavior here. (I want to make clear that I'm not saying Shay or anybody at elastic is anything. This is for the sake of the example.)
Now foobar's author can stop me from using his project name by registering a trademark on it. But the GPL is working as intented.
At the end, "maintaning" a fork of Elastic is wasted engineering effort and time, it would be better to collaborate. But I personally think Elastic should just ignore Amazon and keep doing what their doing, instead of making their product proprietary.