Live data from Hacker News

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

elastic.co

411–420 of 708 posts

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

#411
I'm not surprised, having had the exact same debate about MongoDB a couple of years back.

Elastic has iterated over and over, taking years to remove obvious problems with their products, building heavily on the community for input about their needs, but still managing to ignore them for a long time. I still remember searching for anything that's not Kibana since their interface has been dreadful (and probably still is). I remember people turning away from Logstash to Fluentd and others pretty early, but don't know the exact reasons. I remember when pretty important and frankly "core" stuff like authentication and authorization among others moved into Shield and other specialized commercial plugins.

They have leveraged almost a decade of developer good-will to cope with their inherent architectural problems and to fight for introducing "weird open source software" in their respective companies and ultimately give them their street cred of "logging aggregation == ELK". Now, after most of their stack "just works" like people expect it to, they throw it all away, putting people who fought for them in license jeopardy while pointing the finger at Amazon? I don't have any sympathy for this. It's your business, if it fails, nobody is at fault but yourself, especially if you a 14B behemoth. May the exodus begin, it's long overdue.

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

#412

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…

Would anyone consider licenses the specifically exclude certain companies?

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

#413
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These things seem like Amazon went beyond just selling their hosted version of Elasticstack: "When the service launched, imagine our surprise when the Amazon CTO tweeted that the service was released in collaboration with us. It was not. And over the years, we have heard repeatedly that this confusion persists. NOT OK." "So imagine our surprise when Amazon launched their service in 2015 based on Elasticsearch and cal…

> "When the service launched, imagine our surprise when the Amazon CTO tweeted that the service was released in collaboration with us. It was not. And over the years, we have heard repeatedly that this confusion persists. NOT OK." This just means their CTO was sloppy, Amazon legal department would have never allowed that tweet. > "So imagine our surprise when Amazon launched their service in 2015 based on Elasticsear…

> This just means their CTO was sloppy, Amazon legal department would have never allowed that tweet.

But the tweet is still up: https://twitter.com/Werner/status/649738362086027265 (archive: https://archive.is/0py42)

Pretty sure legal has reviewed it like a 100 times by now: AWS' taking no prisoners here.

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

#414
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…

Your examples from the past were all knocked down (MS) or broken apart to keep the market available to competitors. Are you saying we should do this or just get money out of politics?

MSFT was broken apart. The DOJ trial only began after a decade of microsoft abusing their market position and destroying numerous companies.

I'm saying large industry has undue influence over the regulators and so action only comes when companies like Elastic have gone bankrupt.

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

#415
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mistaken and have missed the recent news which OP is about, but I'm not totally sure what you are talking about. Which license do you consider an OSS licensed elasticsearch?

The apache license, https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/master/LICENSE... If you don't use any of the x-pack features (which used to be paid) you're all good.

Not quite. Elastic is removing Apache licensing altogether for ES and Kibana from 7.11 and switching them to SSPL (or alternately the Elastic license based on user's choice) [1].

[1] : https://www.elastic.co/blog/licensing-change

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

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my job, we evaluated moving from AWS hosted ES to several of the Elastic offerings. Many of them were more expensive than AWS was before taking hardware into account (as in comparing cost of Elastic licensing vs the whole cost from AWS). This made it exceedingly difficult to justify the move. It's not only the headstart with the client (billing relationship in place), but the cost that hampers them.

But isn't a big part of the reason Amazon can offer better pricing because of the scale of their existing client base? I'm not saying that they are doing this, but they could if they chose operate on very thin margins or even at a lost to keep their hold on clients and make up with it on other products in their ecosystem.

In my experience it is that Elastic does not understand the market.

About four years ago we have attempted to get their software . It felt like I was dealing with Cisco sales people circa 1998. They were clueless on how to do a multi hundred thousand dollar deal - think slow, inefficient, inflexible, unwilling to compromise on extra $500 add on that would have ended up being a rounding error.

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

#418

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…

I don't think there's "right" and "wrong", but bizarre (entitled?) expectations. A natural part of Open Source is that someone may come in and make way more money off of something than you do. In fact, Amazon makes way more money off of Linux than Linus ever did. But you don't even have to go that far, many completely unrelated YC companies made way more money off of Linux than Linus did, and could arguably have not…

Linus' original license did forbid making any money off the kernel:

> - You may not distibute[sic] this for a fee, not even "handling" costs.

Also I think the GPL was pretty important to the kernel, since many companies, especially in the 90s, probably would have kept contributions private and their code closed without that gentle push.

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

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do enterprises make it difficult to add a new vendor? Because they are careful with their data and legal obligations. Regulatory and auditing obligations are no joke and onboarding a new vendor is a nontrivial problem to do in a compliant fashion. The only aspect of this which is "detrimental to society" arguably is the legal requirements, but even then you might argue its better for a large organization to pay a…

spot on. The lesson for would-be companies formed around open source is pretty stark: if your stuff is any good, then assume the clould vendors will offer it. If they do, it's going to be really hard for you to compete with a separate commercial offering. Not only has the cloud vendor already gone through the hoops of getting an enterprise agreement in place. They're also big, and recognised, and know how to deal wit…

The whole reason I would choose an open-source tech against closed source is so that I can go to whoever I want for support and future enhancement, that I'm not dependent on this tiny company for my business continuity. Sometimes that tiny founding company may not be the best to offer the kind of support and enhancements I need.

A real personal example I experienced: at one time, the founding team behind a project I happened to use at work actually told me they didn't want to do the enhancement I was asking for because my particular scale-out needs were too niche and none of their other paying customers need that and they didn't have the engineering bandwidth to build my feature (the opportunity cost for them was too high to abandon building features needed by their other customers).

So I had to solve this scale-out problem by myself - which was painful (we had high opportunity cost too).

In that situation, if my cloud vendor were to say they would solve that problem for me as they would be willing to invest whatever engineering bandwidth required to make it happen, then I would go with them.

Now if that happens a few times, the cloud vendor's service offering will be much superior to the original project founding team's offering.

Over time, the cloud vendor's offering will also be cheaper.

Of course the trick here is to be watchful of being sucked into a lock-in by the cloud vendor. You will have to insist that all of the features they are doing for you are actually open-source and portable to another cloud. Many companies define such requirements as part of their procurement process and audit for it.

As more companies start to push for such guardrail requirements to prevent cloud lock-in, the open-source commercial support model may still have a chance – but unfortunately that doesn't necessarily mean the project founding company will do well.

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

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon simply out-competes ElasticSearch with their own product when it comes to consultancy, services You're kind of right about this, but it's the issue that AWS just has a massive head-start with any client that already uses AWS. They don't really out-compete, they just use their existing vendor lock-in to gain an advantage. And really, by using your dominance in one "market" to gain an advantage elsewhere ends…

> They don't really out-compete, they just use their existing vendor lock-in to gain an advantage. For the customer, the biggest advantage of AWS' SaaS offerings over a 3rd party's (hosted on AWS) is the billing. AWS Marketplace negates that. Maybe at some cost to the provider, but I just found ScyllaDB and RedisLabs there, so it must be working for some.

> but I just found ScyllaDB and RedisLabs there, so it must be working for some.

No, it doesn't work for RedisLabs. Amazon offers managed Redis called AWS EC Redis and recently someone I knew decided to move their entire Redis (multiple) clusters from RedisLabs to AWS EC. RedisLabs lost hundred of thousand dollars.

Post reply on HN