Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

elastic.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 188 posts

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#41

Post by growse »

skrtskrt wrote: post #26
Salgat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is AWS stomping all over it? Being able to fork for your own needs is a good thing. You don't make something open source and accept the world's free contributions without acknowledging that.

Again, you’re leading with the definition-of-FOSS argument. Step back from FOSS for a second. I think most people would agree that there’s somewhat of a moral issue with just taking someone else’s open source software and just hosting it and making billions, with nothing for the creators, because you are a megacorp who is good at hosting. Now, is there a way to solve that and have the benefits of FOSS? Both Mongo and…

How is there a moral issue when the software creators specifically and explicitly granted that right?

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#42

Post by Macha »

skrtskrt wrote: post #35
madeofpalk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is. AGPL + dual licensing.

How would dual licensing go down, ideally in these cases? I figured if that worked, Elastic, Redis, MariaDB, Mongo, Timescale, and Cockroach Labs would have gone that route

Start out that way, and you'll find it harder to build a user base. So instead companies have done it as a bait and switch (planned or otherwise)

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#43

Post by mullingitover »

skrtskrt wrote: post #26
Salgat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is AWS stomping all over it? Being able to fork for your own needs is a good thing. You don't make something open source and accept the world's free contributions without acknowledging that.

Again, you’re leading with the definition-of-FOSS argument. Step back from FOSS for a second. I think most people would agree that there’s somewhat of a moral issue with just taking someone else’s open source software and just hosting it and making billions, with nothing for the creators, because you are a megacorp who is good at hosting. Now, is there a way to solve that and have the benefits of FOSS? Both Mongo and…

> someone else’s open source software

This feels like an oxymoron: if it's open source licensed there is explicitly no 'owner.'

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#44

Post by skrtskrt »

totony wrote: post #38
skrtskrt wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL seems to guarantee mostly that you can obtain changes people are applying downstream in order to host your software, and apply them back up. It does not prevent someone from making billions off of doing nothing but hosting your software because they are better than you at hosting.

Nor should it, that's what OSS is about. Why should they not do what they want with your software? As long as it stays open it's OSS

Ok, but I am asking is there any solution?

Is there a way to get the benefits of OSS AND for the creators to get more then zero dollars when someone makes a shitload of money off of just putting their software on an enterprise cloud?

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#45

Post by growse »

mullingitover wrote: post #43
skrtskrt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you’re leading with the definition-of-FOSS argument. Step back from FOSS for a second. I think most people would agree that there’s somewhat of a moral issue with just taking someone else’s open source software and just hosting it and making billions, with nothing for the creators, because you are a megacorp who is good at hosting. Now, is there a way to solve that and have the benefits of FOSS? Both Mongo and…

> someone else’s open source software This feels like an oxymoron: if it's open source licensed there is explicitly no 'owner.'

Perhaps they mean the copyright owner?

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#46

Post by skrtskrt »

Sebb767 wrote: post #40
skrtskrt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you’re leading with the definition-of-FOSS argument. Step back from FOSS for a second. I think most people would agree that there’s somewhat of a moral issue with just taking someone else’s open source software and just hosting it and making billions, with nothing for the creators, because you are a megacorp who is good at hosting. Now, is there a way to solve that and have the benefits of FOSS? Both Mongo and…

> Now, is there a way to solve that and have the benefits of FOSS? The answer is simple - no. Either your product is fully free and you accept that people can fork it, even Amazon, or you choose a restrictive license. You can't make "free" (as in libre) compatible with "but". I can totally see that you think this is unfair, but they did allow it and they were perfectly happy when being FOSS brought them market share.…

If everyone stomps their feet and says "there's no solution, otherwise it's not OSS!" then the end result is only going to be a lot less open-source software.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#47

Post by shawnz »

skrtskrt wrote: post #26
Salgat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is AWS stomping all over it? Being able to fork for your own needs is a good thing. You don't make something open source and accept the world's free contributions without acknowledging that.

Again, you’re leading with the definition-of-FOSS argument. Step back from FOSS for a second. I think most people would agree that there’s somewhat of a moral issue with just taking someone else’s open source software and just hosting it and making billions, with nothing for the creators, because you are a megacorp who is good at hosting. Now, is there a way to solve that and have the benefits of FOSS? Both Mongo and…

Don't you think there's a moral issue expecting free contributions to something which only you are allowed to monetize? And how can you satisfy users to the greatest extent while also preventing them from using the provider that is best able to meet their needs?

EDIT: regarding your inline response,

> Nowhere in OSS licenses does it include the expectations of free contributions

The expectation is not encoded in the license, it is the reason for choosing the license. Why would anyone want to afford you the benefits of FOSS so that you can personally monetize it and nobody else?

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#48

Post by owenmarshall »

skrtskrt wrote: post #26
Salgat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is AWS stomping all over it? Being able to fork for your own needs is a good thing. You don't make something open source and accept the world's free contributions without acknowledging that.

Again, you’re leading with the definition-of-FOSS argument. Step back from FOSS for a second. I think most people would agree that there’s somewhat of a moral issue with just taking someone else’s open source software and just hosting it and making billions, with nothing for the creators, because you are a megacorp who is good at hosting. Now, is there a way to solve that and have the benefits of FOSS? Both Mongo and…

You’ve got it precisely backwards. The license placed on a software encodes what you wish to allow other people to do with it.

If you have a moral qualm with bigcorps using your work for free, you don’t license in such a way that they can. Make your own license, or slap AGPL3 on it - either way, no bigcorp touches it.

But you cannot be mad when you say “I release this code under these terms” and AWS takes you up on your offer.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#49

Post by growse »

skrtskrt wrote: post #44
totony wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor should it, that's what OSS is about. Why should they not do what they want with your software? As long as it stays open it's OSS

Ok, but I am asking is there any solution? Is there a way to get the benefits of OSS AND for the creators to get more then zero dollars when someone makes a shitload of money off of just putting their software on an enterprise cloud?

> Ok, but I am asking is there any solution?

> Is there a way to get the benefits of OSS AND for the creators to get more then zero dollars when someone makes a shitload of money off of just putting their software on an enterprise cloud?

You're basically asking if something can be simultaneously open and not open.

The benefits come precisely because someone can come along and create a successful business using your software without owing you anything. That is the reason for the benefits.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#50

Post by bobertlo »

skrtskrt wrote: post #26
Salgat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is AWS stomping all over it? Being able to fork for your own needs is a good thing. You don't make something open source and accept the world's free contributions without acknowledging that.

Again, you’re leading with the definition-of-FOSS argument. Step back from FOSS for a second. I think most people would agree that there’s somewhat of a moral issue with just taking someone else’s open source software and just hosting it and making billions, with nothing for the creators, because you are a megacorp who is good at hosting. Now, is there a way to solve that and have the benefits of FOSS? Both Mongo and…

if their service is hosting an open source product maybe they should be competitive at it
Post reply on HN