341–350 of 969 posts
The audacity of these AWS folks patronizing elastic about open source despite AWS making millions of dollars off of their open source project just reeks of entitlement. Glad I am never going to use AWS.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or real. But one thing is for certain, AWS is using open source software, for profit, under the Apache license, exactly as the license was intended
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously Amazon has the legal right to make a fork, but I think it's understandable why people would still prefer that the people who actually did the innovation and the majority of the work get their cut of the insane profits AWS is making.
It's like leaving your car in the middle of the road, keys in the ignition, and a deed transferring ownership to whoever holds it under the window wiper, then getting annoyed at someone driving off with it.
You’d have to add a replicator button to the car so you make a copy and don’t actually take the original.
I do not get why people are coming down on AWS here. Elastic made the software available under the Apache License. That gives AWS the right to offer this service. Maybe they did not have right to trademarks, there are courts to settle that. AWS contributes improvements to the project. This is just about Elastic and their business model. They could have not made it open source and it probably just would not have been…
Because an 800lbs gorilla is trying to crush an open source project? They could've come up with some agreement to oem Elastic and they both could've benefited. Instead they decided to just build a competing service at the expense of Elastic. It's the same reason most of the community had no time for Oracle forking RHEL. >AWS contributes improvements to the project. Per a poster below, 9 PRs out of 41,000 (I haven't v…
elasticsearch $ git shortlog -nes | grep -i 'amazon'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing about the new ES license would've prevented me from using it for free in the previous places I've used it for free, as far as I can tell. Yet it would've prevented AWS from undercutting their paid offering in the place I'm at now that would rather pay for it than self-host it. The lesson I'm taking away from this is just use a license like they're using now from day 1. Totally "open" open source only works if…
> Nothing about the new ES license would've prevented me from using it for free in the previous places I've used it for free, as far as I can tell. Maybe. I can no longer tick the "does it use an approved open source license" compliance checkbox any more. Sadly, for me, there's now a very strong incentive to move forward with an Apache2.0 licensed Amazon fork instead of the Elastic one.
I am so delighted to hear this. Open source wins again. Open source is the right for you to do whatever you want with the software, AND YES, that includes monetize it. I've been sitting on the sidelines reading the different perspectives, but I just cannot see how you can be on the side of Elasticsearch. How can they take all the work from the OSS community and add a clause that THEY only can monetize it? I will tell…
There is an important thing that gets ignored a lot in these conversations where an organization that stewards an open-source project close-sources it. That software grew largely because it was open-source, and it really makes a difference. It's not only those who contributed to the software and made PRs (which is sometimes a surprisingly small number of devs), but the software often only exists because it was taken…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elastic Search launched more than a decade back, when the cloud was used in an entirely different manner. The team had no way to foresee the shift to the managed services model; of AWS taking popular Open Source products, repackaging it and undercutting the original authors. The decent thing to do (for all managed Open Source products that you didn't create yourself), would have been to offer a cut to the original te…
> "We proposed to give back jointly at a significant level and were turned down." Adrian Cockcroft (VP AWS) https://twitter.com/adrianco/status/1105178074499375106?s=20
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and here I feel that there's something missing in my description. While I think Elastics move is bad I definitely don't feel like Amazon is the good guy here either. I feel that there's a good chance that Amazon steam rolls Elastic and then five ten years away the community is worse off.
Open Source makes the most sense when your position is “I made this because it solved a problem I had and am giving it away so that it might solve problems for you.” We might actually be better off with Amazon as the steward because they don’t need to make money on the software itself.
It would make a lot of sense for them to slowly close it down or modify it so that it eventually only makes sense to use it on their platform. Or something similar. And given what I've seen from their behaviour I would expect them to exploit whatever market leverage they can.
Amazon are the masters of theivery. The hypocrisy is not going unnoticed. Amazon contributed nothing of value to open source, then they basically stole the hard work of others and again contributed nothing back and now they're going so far as to preach about open source. Please. The sad part is, users won't care and customers won't care because at the end of the day ease of use wins. Elastic are taking drastic measur…
> open source > stolen ??? https://supernotes-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/image-uploads/...
I'm not sure I understand Amazon's game theory on this one. Anything they contribute to their Apache License branch can be used by Elastic, but not vice versa. This means Elastic can continue to differentiate from Amazon without worry. Amazon however can keep the code they've not contributed back internally, but they could always do that. Perhaps this is simply an image move they don't plan to actually enhance or mai…
And no, SSPL is nothing like the GPL. The purpose of GPL is to keep the code open-source. The purpose of SSPL is to others from using the software in certain ways (to make money), and its wording is not clear enough (and it does not have legal precedence) to make it clear what its actual limitations are.