111–120 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed that "website that tells you nothing" was a deliberate thing, presumably because somehow they make more money as a result. It seems to be the rule more than exception.
I can't think of any company does that and makes money. Imagine Apple doing the same, they'd go bankrupt.
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
Sounds to me like they're trying to cover up a bad case of regret. At our company we've fully shifted to OpenSearch, so there's no going back to ElasticSearch even if we wanted (not that we would want to). Also there is a lot of engineering contribution from Amazon that's seemingly gone now from Elasticsearch, right?
I'm sure there will be people commenting in this thread that they understand exactly what the AGPL requires, and it's not that bad, but their opinion matters much less than the opinion of lawyers.
I've never been able to get lawyers in a business setting comfortable with us using AGPL components, for fear that it will be interpreted at some point to require us to release our application source code.
As a result, we've never been able to use anything licensed AGPL in a corporate setting.
> The good news is that while it was painful, it worked. 3 years later, Amazon is fully invested in their fork, the market confusion has been (mostly) resolved, and our partnership with AWS is stronger than ever. We were even named AWS partner of the year. I don't entirely understand this bit.
Too late, the community all moved over to OpenSearch. I'll never forgive Elastic for locking basic security features behind their paid licence. Over the years probably millions of people had their data compromised due to that (due to people inadvertently leaving instances on the public internet - having auth enabled by default would have helped a lot)
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?
There isn't a 'purer' form of open source which does exactly what you want with respect to big companies using the code.
You can be in favour of licensing that restricts Amazon or Microsoft's right to use your work. But that position is detrimental to, not supportive of, open source, since such a license would not be open source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are songs by Kendrick Lamar. I guess that these were used to try and add a youthful, lighthearted touch to the article? Didn't work on me though.
I'm a fan of that album and I didn't even realize the reference. Is there any other point to it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why they didn't treat Amazon's previous offering as a trademark infringement.
We did: https://www.elastic.co/blog/elastic-and-amazon-reach-agreeme... But it takes a long time. And it's very costly (especially against a much larger entity like Amazon). Legal battles alone will rarely save you (in time). [I work for Elastic]
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…
- Marketing a project that isn't open source as open source. Debate about what the "definition" is or why it matters all you want; taking a term and using it in a way that contradicts the vast majority of domain experts is bullshit.
- Taking an open source project, which people adopted on the basis that it was open source, which people contributed issues and pull requests to on the basis that it was open source, which people evangelized and promoted because it was open source, blogged about, built on, and so forth because it was open source... and moving it to a license that isn't open source.
To be clear: yes, the unforced error here in many cases is accepting a CLA. That said, I think it's not even unreasonable that people initially accepted CLAs: many of them presumably believed they would only ever be used in good faith, as a sort-of CYA. But CLAs are now very commonplace, so refusing to contribute to any project with a CLA requirement is hard.
If nobody cared about the benefits of open source, then it would be easier for companies to just start with a closed or shared source offering and call it a day; not much backlash for not changing a license. Clearly, marketing something as open source helps... but once you've gotten what you need out of it, it's easy enough to click a button and change it back to being closed.
In my opinion the big advantage of open source is that everyone is on a level playing field. This isn't "fair", it's balanced, and that matters if you are serious about long-term software. If shared-source software is discontinued, that's probably the end of the road for it. For open source software, it only depends on if there are big enough stakeholders to keep funding development; it never has to stop.
There's ideas like BUSL, which might work better... but it's still awkward and experimental. I don't put much stock into any of the other "shared sorta-like-open source" licenses, they're mostly bullshit and sometimes catastrophically horrible, i.e. much worse than AGPL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds to me like they're trying to cover up a bad case of regret. At our company we've fully shifted to OpenSearch, so there's no going back to ElasticSearch even if we wanted (not that we would want to). Also there is a lot of engineering contribution from Amazon that's seemingly gone now from Elasticsearch, right?
Sounds like you've fully shifted to exploiting (without contributing anything) to OpenSearch. I think Elastic will be just fine without your company or Amazon.