121–130 of 378 posts
Where does Elastic claim SSPL is open source?
Also, why is SSPL not open source? As far as I can tell, it mostly just seems like the APGL, but taken to 11. I can definitely appreciate why it's a problematic license, but I don't think "not open source" is its problem.
Where does Elastic claim SSPL is open source?
The Elastic blog post announcing the change never says exactly those words, but it repeatedly talks about being an "open source company" with an "open source product" -- despite the fact that Elasticsearch is now available under a choice of two different licenses, neither of which is "open source" under any reasonable definition. (The other option, the Elastic License, allows you to use the product in either source o…
Or the Open Source Definition from https://opensource.org/osd
On the license there are 3 main "propagation" clauses: Conveying Verbatim Copies / Conveying Modified Source Versions / Conveying Non-Source Forms
Furthermore: Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies / Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients
On the other hand, the "issue" seems to be an Aferro-like clause that conveying it as a service combined/linked with other software over a network _counts_ as distribution an gives a right to the users to request the source code that makes the service work.
Here is Google rejection of APGL on this basis: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
It's just a change to make sure that those who resell ES as a service share their code. We use AWS's ES. And, as far as I'm concerned they already open-source their version. SSPL is actually helping the open-source community here
> The SSPL allows free and unrestricted use, as well as modification, with the simple requirement that if you provide the product as a service, you must also publicly release any modifications as well as the source code of your management layers under SSPL.
Not a lawyer, but I think AWS fall foul of "as well as the source code of your management layers" because they have a massive amount of closed source stuff running behind their ES service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, why is SSPL not open source? As far as I can tell, it mostly just seems like the APGL, but taken to 11. I can definitely appreciate why it's a problematic license, but I don't think "not open source" is its problem.
Because you can't fork it and do whatever you want with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, why is SSPL not open source? As far as I can tell, it mostly just seems like the APGL, but taken to 11. I can definitely appreciate why it's a problematic license, but I don't think "not open source" is its problem.
Because you can't fork it and do whatever you want with it.
It's just a change to make sure that those who resell ES as a service share their code. We use AWS's ES. And, as far as I'm concerned they already open-source their version. SSPL is actually helping the open-source community here
...and it isn't helping anyone (other than the licensor) let alone the F/OSS community: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116
MPLv2, EPLv2, xGPLv3 are strictly libre even if not as wildly copyleft as SSPL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author says in the end that the problem is not Amazon. Then links to a post where he suggests that companies maintaining the open source should have "invested the resources to build stronger communities around them. They would have reached out to Amazon, encouraged them to contribute back to the projects, and helped them to do so." Of course, they should "encourage" Amazon not to steal their product and business…
Of course, they should "encourage" Amazon not to steal their product and business model. Right. It is not possible to steal something from someone who deliberately and freely offers that thing to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, why is SSPL not open source? As far as I can tell, it mostly just seems like the APGL, but taken to 11. I can definitely appreciate why it's a problematic license, but I don't think "not open source" is its problem.
It seems it has neither the OSI's blessing as an Open Source licence, nor the FSF's blessing as a Free Software licence. Can anyone comment on why not, given that the AGPL has the blessing of both organisations? edit Here's an informative StackExchange comment. [0] Apparently it's a good deal stricter than the AGPL, and introduces much more legal uncertainty. [0] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/7523/
This is an alarmist headline. The SSPL license to which they are switching only requires your code to be open sourced if you are providing Elasticsearch itself as a service. This change is directed at cloud providers who take open source software and then provide them as a service for payment without contributing to the project. If you are using Elasticsearch on your backend to build search-enabled products or websit…
GPL does not clearly define where the boundaries of a program is, but there is a fair bit of basis in the GPL FAQ and other writings from the FSF that suggesting that in their opinion, if I write a program B, that specifically depends on program A, then program A and B is part of the same program, regardless of whether or not it is linking in terms of C or if it is using it over the network.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation : What is the difference between an “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified versions”? (#MereAggregation)
> By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, why is SSPL not open source? As far as I can tell, it mostly just seems like the APGL, but taken to 11. I can definitely appreciate why it's a problematic license, but I don't think "not open source" is its problem.
It seems it has neither the OSI's blessing as an Open Source licence, nor the FSF's blessing as a Free Software licence. Can anyone comment on why not, given that the AGPL has the blessing of both organisations? edit Here's an informative StackExchange comment. [0] Apparently it's a good deal stricter than the AGPL, and introduces much more legal uncertainty. [0] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/7523/