AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana • Hacker News Board

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#431

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:27 AM UTC

cwyers wrote: post #422

ryukafalz wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What AWS and others basically did is create identical services, keep all the profits, and exploit gaps in Open Source licensing to this end. Gaps in open source licensing? The license Elastic chose explicitly allows anyone to take the code, run it as they wish, and not contribute anything back. There are other FOSS licenses that are slightly more strict about this; they could have chosen AGPL if they wanted someone…

> they could have chosen AGPL if they wanted someone hosting a service to publish their changes, for example. So... you admit that the people who created the GPL decided their license wasn't sufficient to cover a certain usecase and revised it to cover it. But you think it's unfair to call this a "gap" that ES is now trying to close? EDIT: I do think it's fair to point out ways in which the new license for ES is wors…

I see it as “there are a variety of licenses from which to choose, depending on your goals”. BSD, Apache, and MIT all represent different points in space, as do GPL and AGPL.

When I choose Apache or MIT, I do so for a reason and if you or Amazon use code in compliance with that license, I’m happy and you’re not “exploiting a gap” but rather “complying with the terms I offered”.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#432

Post by bigiain » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #392

bigiain wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I _mostly_ agree here. But... I do note that the original "open source definitions" were drafted back in the late 90s (and from memory, built on older pre existing Debian docs of similar nature). The world was different back then, I wonder what the authors of those docs would have considered "user freedom" to be in the age of AWS/GAE/Azure? (I guess Stallman, for all his flaws, is a reasonable guide to what the free…

So, let's pretend I'm Amazon and I'm offering a SAAS Elasticsearch product. You need someone to manage your Elasticsearch for me, so you pay me. Internally, I'm running vanilla, unmodified Elasticsearch, which talks to a management layer of proprietary code that interfaces with the rest of AWS. What right is being violated here? You as a user can run your own Elasticsearch software; I haven't modified it and thus I d…

According to Stallman at least, the principles of "Open Source" are much less deep that the principals of "free software". His opinion says the "Open Source" philosophy is based off watering down "free software" principles.

"The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term."

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

I guess you and Stallman agree there, and that permissive open source licenses are totally up-to-date with modern cloud computing businesses and business practices and that Elastic and their choice of Apache2 are getting exactly what they signed up for. And that "free software" licences especially the viral ones exemplified by GPL/AGPL are also still relevant in 2021, and having chosen one of those would have given Elastic.co what they claim to be demanding... (I think I agree there too.)

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#433

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

cwyers wrote: post #422

ryukafalz wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What AWS and others basically did is create identical services, keep all the profits, and exploit gaps in Open Source licensing to this end. Gaps in open source licensing? The license Elastic chose explicitly allows anyone to take the code, run it as they wish, and not contribute anything back. There are other FOSS licenses that are slightly more strict about this; they could have chosen AGPL if they wanted someone…

> they could have chosen AGPL if they wanted someone hosting a service to publish their changes, for example. So... you admit that the people who created the GPL decided their license wasn't sufficient to cover a certain usecase and revised it to cover it. But you think it's unfair to call this a "gap" that ES is now trying to close? EDIT: I do think it's fair to point out ways in which the new license for ES is wors…

> But you think it's unfair to call this a "gap" that ES is now trying to close?

Yes, because ES didn't use any GPL license even when they had every option to; they used the Apache license which is explicitly incredibly permissive.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#434

Post by bane » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:33 AM UTC

This is really clearly a case of Elastic wanting to have its cake and eat it too but also of the existential challenge that faces the open source community -- how do developers of open source software pay to keep the lights on?

There's a bit of a myth that OSS is lots and lots of volunteers spending their free-time to contribute bits of code here and there. But the reality is that most of the current major open source projects are all basically corporately sponsored. It's not the Cathedral and the Bazaar, it's the Cathedral and the anchor tenants at the local mall. And they're all contributing funds to build the Christmas display and Take-pictures-with-Santa spot near the fountains. It's open to the public, but the moment somebody starts busing in hundres of tourists they get upset.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#435

Post by kotxig » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:33 AM UTC

Elastic made the mistake of building a whole business on open source software by relying on the poor experience and artificial overhead to launching that software independently and in a production ready fashion. It's no surprise then that people in the community identify that this value is somewhat artificial. If you bridge that gap (either cloud providers providing it or someone contributes containerized/terraformed single deployment scripts), the value of having someone navigate the artificial complexity for you vanishes, and thus the value to the customer.

You have to question what value Elastic is offering its customers on top of the opensource project. Why is it that people complain about AWS devaluing the commercial services of Elastic but none of you complain about opensource devaluing the development of code in general. I can't for the life of me find a job that pays to write a new framework or some piece of interesting software because opensource completely devalues code. I think the proliferation of opensource is probably worse than some of you imagine. I'm not writing any opensource that isn't sponsored because I refuse to spend my time devaluing software development. The vast majority of the profits from opensource all end up in the hands of massive tech companies anyway. If we could skew the commercial advantages to the developer our industry would be a lot more pleasant.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#436

Post by mixedCase » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

kodah wrote: post #384

markphip wrote: post #27

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…

I don't really get how people get this twisted. ES and other companies have a business that sells a managed version of their product. This is how they sustain developers to continue working on Elastic Search. This model has worked for companies long before cloud providers were a thing. What AWS and others basically did is create identical services, keep all the profits, and exploit gaps in Open Source licensing to th…

What makes you think this is a "gap in Open Source licensing"? Is it not more easily explained as Elastic's business plan having a gaping hole instead? Don't put the cart before the horse.

They built on top of a license that gave the user a set of freedoms they don't want the user to have. End of story. Now they've patched this hole, but they want to keep the goodwill that comes from Open Source licensing instead of owning up to their decision and decide to blame AWS as a scapegoat, all the while acting as if their license does not violate one of the core values on Open Source Definition where you cannot set restrictions on specific fields of endeavor (in this case, the same field the product belongs to).

Now that's not okay.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#437

Post by __blockcipher__ » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:35 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #326

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they can make much more money writing software and not giving it away Hey guess what. It's possible to take an Apache 2.0 codebase, let's say Lucene, and then build more Apache 2.0 code on top of it, give it away entirely for free, and still build a $15B business. And you think capitalism has failed here? Absolute nonsense.

Yes, it's possible to take an existing Apache 2.0 codebase, release some new Apache 2.0 code, build a $15B business, and then stop offering your code under Apache 2.0. Great! Shareholder value! That's literally what you set out to do! How could it have possibly failed? What I'm actually saying is that when people think that outcome is a bad thing , their beef is with our particular breed of capitalism. When they say…

The reason I'm happy with Capitalism is because Elastic backstabbed the community and in a manner of weeks we'll have community-driven Apache 2.0 forks. So I think the market is responding as it should and am happy to see it.

> This good outcome could have been so much better, had there been regulations on breaking up large companies so they can't bully small ones

Well, I disagree with the (I think?) implication that Amazon is doing any bullying here, and I disagree that companies should be broken up purely for their size. But since we're getting into anti-trust authority, perhaps I can convince you to throw the ring into Mordor:

While anti-trust could theoretically fight monopolies, those laws exist within a system in which special interests will co-opt those powers to essentially defend their own monopolies. So, big company X kicks over the right amount of lobbying dollars and magically the politicians want to bring an anti-trust suit against competitor Y, etc.

Now the blue-pilled response is to say, "hey that's just another failure of capitalism, and that's why we need to get money out of politics!". In my unashamedly biased opinion, the red-pilled answer is to realize that these power structures will always be co-opted and the best solution is decentralization and therefore not having a state that can hand out bailouts, force small businesses to close up shop, discriminate against low-skilled workers with minimum wage regulations, exert arbitrary power through anti-trust legislation, etc.

Sorry, I kind of got down a philosophical rabbithole.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#438

Post by jeswin » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:36 AM UTC

riquito wrote: post #339

jeswin wrote: post #191

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

There's a good quote on that thread which captures what AWS is doing with products like ElasticSearch:

"My argument is that AWS is eating seed grain, on its supply side, and doesn't know it."

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#439

Post by jefftk » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:37 AM UTC

cwyers wrote: post #422

ryukafalz wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What AWS and others basically did is create identical services, keep all the profits, and exploit gaps in Open Source licensing to this end. Gaps in open source licensing? The license Elastic chose explicitly allows anyone to take the code, run it as they wish, and not contribute anything back. There are other FOSS licenses that are slightly more strict about this; they could have chosen AGPL if they wanted someone…

> they could have chosen AGPL if they wanted someone hosting a service to publish their changes, for example. So... you admit that the people who created the GPL decided their license wasn't sufficient to cover a certain usecase and revised it to cover it. But you think it's unfair to call this a "gap" that ES is now trying to close? EDIT: I do think it's fair to point out ways in which the new license for ES is wors…

The AGPL is nearly 2 decades old, and its tradeoffs are well known among people working in open source. If Elastic had wanted its protections (and restrictions) they easily could have chosen it.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#440

Post by __blockcipher__ » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 1:39 AM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #432

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let's pretend I'm Amazon and I'm offering a SAAS Elasticsearch product. You need someone to manage your Elasticsearch for me, so you pay me. Internally, I'm running vanilla, unmodified Elasticsearch, which talks to a management layer of proprietary code that interfaces with the rest of AWS. What right is being violated here? You as a user can run your own Elasticsearch software; I haven't modified it and thus I d…

According to Stallman at least, the principles of "Open Source" are much less deep that the principals of "free software". His opinion says the "Open Source" philosophy is based off watering down "free software" principles. "The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free softwa…

> And that "free software" licences especially the viral ones exemplified by GPL/AGPL are also still relevant in 2021, and having chosen one of those would have given Elastic.co what they claim to be demanding... (I think I agree there too.)

I think we agree up until this point, at which you fall into a trap. This is the same trap I was trying to avoid by giving my SSPL scenario above.

A copyleft license like GPLv3 does not prevent a business from operating a SAAS business.

AGPL would apply, but it only triggers upon modification. So as long as Amazon doesn't modify Elasticsearch itself, they don't have to publish anything (because there's nothing to publish), and if they do modify, they have to share just those changes. Which is very fair to me from a copyleft perspective.

Now SSPL tries to go further and say for merely using the software in a certain way, you must release not just any changes to the software itself but also everything around the software. That is what makes the SSPL neither open source nor free. (I guess I don't actually know how "free" is defined, so I can only say for certain that it's not open source, but I don't think SSPL even counts as copyleft)