101–110 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we sunk our own boat, it forced them to get on rafts and leave, and now we're declaring our own boat sea-worthy again.
So, yes, the ELv2 did introduce significant friction?
I'm pretty happy with this, since they are keeping the option to use the Elastic License. Now everyone can be happy. To me, it's weird that the AGPL is any more "open source" than the Elastic License. The AGPL requires you to publish all of your source code if you make any changes to the product; the Elastic License just says, "don't use our code to make a direct competitor to Elasticsearch". I find the former to be…
Imagine what the web would be like if React users weren't allowed to compete with Meta.
I'm pretty happy with this, since they are keeping the option to use the Elastic License. Now everyone can be happy. To me, it's weird that the AGPL is any more "open source" than the Elastic License. The AGPL requires you to publish all of your source code if you make any changes to the product; the Elastic License just says, "don't use our code to make a direct competitor to Elasticsearch". I find the former to be…
There's two ways that this doesn't seem right to me, though it hinges on the vague term "interacting" and how it's interpreted.
Suppose I use Elasticsearch to power website search on my company's website -- maybe something like a customer support knowledge base of a bunch of FAQs and support articles, and I make some modifications to Elasticsearch to better fit my requirements. My website makes calls to an Elasticsearch service to provide search results.
1. Based on my interpretation of the AGPL, visitors to my site who make searches are not remotely interacting with the Elasticsearch software that I am running; they are not sending requests directly to the Elasticsearch software, and thus they have no rights to its source code under the AGPL. (I'm not suggesting that a proxy server that passes on requests and responses unmodified would be the same situation.)
2. If they do in fact have rights to the source code, it is only to the modified version of Elasticsearch, not "all my source code" (which could include the web server software itself).
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13
> In AGPLv3, what counts as “interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer network?” If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingR...
I'm pretty happy with this, since they are keeping the option to use the Elastic License. Now everyone can be happy. To me, it's weird that the AGPL is any more "open source" than the Elastic License. The AGPL requires you to publish all of your source code if you make any changes to the product; the Elastic License just says, "don't use our code to make a direct competitor to Elasticsearch". I find the former to be…
"changes to the product" means changes to the service itself, and "publish all of your source code" means the specific service, not for everything you build. If you patch the ES service you make the patch public, but you don't need to make any service calling ES public. That is pretty static and controlled on your end.
On the other hand "direct competitor" can change over time, so that if elastic buys a competitor to my product or reinterpreters what it means to be a competitor it changes how I can use the software. Say you were early into ML stuff and built a RAG on top of ES, ES will probably offer that soon as a service (if they don't already) so now you are a competitor without any change to your business. Or you want to launch a small project that is ambiguously adjacent to a component (with these non-OSS licenses) that another team within your company uses from a third party. That now becomes a huge legal liability and risk, regardless if you use that exact component to compete with that supplier or are even aware of it.
At least that is the way I've understood the risks of these non-OSS licenses and have gotten similar advice from lawyers at major users of OSS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you the one who makes the call, or are you getting hundreds of customers requesting OpenSearch over Elastic? If you're making the call then that's really one anecdote, not hundreds.
I let the customers choose by themselves. And guess what they choose every single time after checking license cost from Elastic.
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.
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
Great, how long until they change the license again?
Depends on what new tricks ~FAANG~ MAMAA companies come up with to get as much as they can from open source without giving anything back I suppose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's pretty sad that Conglomo X can take an open source product, add some tweaks and sell/capture the entire market. Basically taking all the work that open source maintainers have done. What's the solution here?
I've always been a little sceptical as well of the grassroots (maybe, maybe not) resistance on here against any efforts to stop the big 3 from using their network effects to syphon off the revenue from these projects. The messaging against elastic style licences and even copyleft licenses is too convenient for me to trust as being 100% genuine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"'We had a slower start to the year with the volume of customer commitments impacted by segmentation changes that we made at the beginning of the year, which are taking longer than expected to settle. We have been taking steps to address this, but it will impact our revenue this year,' said Ash Kulkarni, Chief Executive Officer, Elastic." So, whatever that means, is the answer to your question.
I guess it's better to have nerds fighting about licensing filling up the Internet instead of people talking about why there's a 25% decline in the share price :)