341–350 of 473 posts
This detail in the post made me chuckle. Oftentimes big vendors give out these kinds of marketing awards strategically.
One big firm I know makes it a point to have its CEO present on-stage awards at its annual user conference to customer that have indicated they might not review.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the definition of "open source" that narrowly defines open source is going to be the thing that contributes to the reduction of open source software. Open source communities are essentially anarchist syndicates, collectively working towards common good. Groups like Amazon coming in and taking their work and selling it, profiting to the tune of millions, and contributing nothing ba…
What you probably want instead is "fair source": https://fair.io/
Like their names imply, open source is about source being open. Whereas fair source is about ensuring that code is used fairly.
I would argue that people contributing to open source shouldn't be putting themselves in a position to be "actively exploited". If that's something you're worried about, then open source was probably the wrong choice. You should have sold the code for a profit instead, or established some revenue-limited source sharing (so that only indie devs can use it for free, like e.g. Unreal Engine). Or use a fair source license. Or a proprietary "source available" license.
What license are contributions to Elastic given as? I'm very confused how this works with all the licenses, are they just all compatible with AGPL magically? Or are all contributions under their primary private license, I think the last time I saw someone change a license similar to how Elastic did (maybe MongoDB?) I suggested AGPL, I don't really like the license, but it is designed for this type of thing. I'm guess…
The CLA best answers the questions in your first paragraph. https://www.elastic.co/contributor-agreement
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not the argument at all. Software (open source or otherwise) is not created for free; devs gotta eat, pay rent, etc. The business model of Elastic and similar is to offer a SaaS. They feel that Amazon offering a SaaS is directly competing with their business model, and because half the world runs on AWS it's not too different from Windows shipping IE back in the day killing Netscape. Elastic feels Amazon is e…
Developers willingly choose to donate their work under an OSS license. So yes there are costs and thankfully people release without the expectation. It’s perfectly fine to sell your software. There’s trillions of dollars worth of companies that do that. But I make sure I eat through other methods so I’m able to donate my time. If Elastic doesn’t want Amazon to use their software, then they shouldn’t release it as OSS…
So maybe they should stop releasing future contributions as OSS? Oh, wait…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately many companies charge extra for security where security should be the default. Truth to be told there some some situations where extra security costs could be justified but there are not many if charge is necessary it should be considered as a temporary measure. My $0.02.
[flagged]
We’re all on the same internet, people getting taken over and used as ddos nodes, leveraged for further attacks, or leaking PII is a pain for everybody.
Skimping on security is always easier, and security is hard to detect for the end user. We shouldn’t have a race to the bottom on this stuff.
For volunteer projects, like a lot of open source, we can’t really make demands. But I think it is still unethical to release an open source project that invites itself to used in an insecure manner. It is like an “attractive nuisance” (typical example: In some jurisdictions, you might be responsible for an un-fenced pool on your property if a kid falls in it, even if getting to it required trespassing, because we don’t want a society where uninformed people die avoidably). Without a customer service relationship, open source developers don’t have an obligation to make something useful, but nobody should put harmful things out into the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather a software product be eventually open source than use a never open source license, but I still try not to use it if I can choose open source. And I refuse to sign CLA's that require giving more eights than the license grants to me, and won't sponsor projects that require them. (with some limited, carefully considered exceptions for well established open source foundations that require CLAs, but that ha…
Out of curiosity (since I'm pursuing an AGPL/proprietary dual-license), how would you consider a CLA that explicitly tied my right to sell the proprietary license to releasing under the AGPL? > Smolblog shall be entitled to make Your Contributions available under a proprietary license provided Smolblog also makes Your Contributions available to the public under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License versi…
It would allow you to maintain a proprietary product with proprietary features that you don't release under the AGPL and use my code within that product.
I like reciprical licenses, if I get code from you under the MIT license, I will give you code back under the MIT license (which you can use however you want to, under that license, just like I can.) On the other hand if you give me your code under the AGPLv3, I give you back code under the AGPLv3 (and you can take it or leave it, so long as if you take it, it is under the terms of the AGPLv3 license).
At least, that is my idealist stance. But in reality, practicality sometimes takes precedence, so I might make a minor bugfix or something. But then I have all the trouble of reading the CLA, making sure I understand it, and agreeing to it, so practicality may just as likely lead me to just file an issue instead and patch my own copy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was so that AWS would create their own name for their fork: > we changed the license, knowing it would result in a fork of Elasticsearch with a different name and a different trajectory. It’s a long story. I think the name of the fork is now OpenSearch.
what is preventing AWS from dropping OpenSearch and going back to just selling Elastic ?
Contrary to what other people are saying in this thread, I would not say it has better branding than ElasticSearch and that ES has lost its battle. Outside AWS OpenSearch is still not a big contender
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Security is a basic non functional requirement for all software.
Then don't use it? It's non-functional right? I don't get where the complaints come in. Side note: Security in these discussions is often something more like "It works with my single sign on system" or "It lets me check this box on my audit form". Security doesn't only have to happen at the app layer and it's completely doable to isolate any software in a way that is is secure despite itself. So it's less security an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one not buying this reasoning? Seems like there's more than is being said, otherwise they would have said this by now. I'd reckon that ELv2 had friction that couldn't be easily overcome without OSS or at the very least DOSP [0]. I personally experienced said friction with ELv2, so makes me curious. [0]: https://opensource.org/dosp
It was crazy for Amazon to name their hosted search product Elasticsearch! At that time, Amazon clearly felt the name had some value. I agree that this is probably not the picture of the huge win they are painting. Still, it must have been frustrating for Elastic to have to explain to potential customers that they weren't reselling an Amazon product. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252513588/Amazon-drops-E...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, the OpenSearch brand has more value now than Elastic.
I see a couple people on here claiming this, but no data to back it up. Elastic beats out OpenSearch by a wide margin on every metric I've thought to check (gh stars, gh stars rate of increase, number of commits, number of pull requests opened, number of pull requests merged, number of issues, stack overflow questions...). Not a single one shows OpenSearch ahead. What metric are you using to come to the conclusion th…