141–150 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you try to sell AGPL software the owner will probably shake you down.
Examples?
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
> I personally experienced said friction with ELv2, so makes me curious. Can you share more? What friction did you experience with ELv2?
Also briefly touched on one of the issues here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41395663
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How truly far we've fallen that people refer to using open source software— literally software given away for other people to use, exploitation. Gonna go tell those freeloading kids who take my candy on Halloween that they're exploiting me unless they contribute to next year's candy bowl.
1) Amazon is powerful, thus bad
2) we’re discussing Amazon
3) find something potentially bad
4) use confusing and negative language to throw shade to discredit my target because #1
It’s really frustrating to experience these types of conversation. People explicitly choose to donate their work to the world under an open source license. Complaining they someone uses without contributing is so stupid it defies belief. It’s like complaining because Amazon only pays $5 for a Big Mac when that is the posted price.
For use by businesses, the AGPL is a nightmare from my perspective. What does it actually require on behalf of a company using AGPL components? If I write my own library and link statically I need to release that? What about if I link it dynamically? What if the library is running on a separate machine and is separated by the network? I'm sure there will be people commenting in this thread that they understand exactl…
what.... are those random words... in brackets??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How truly far we've fallen that people refer to using open source software— literally software given away for other people to use, exploitation. Gonna go tell those freeloading kids who take my candy on Halloween that they're exploiting me unless they contribute to next year's candy bowl.
- ElasticSearch was open-source
- Amazon offered ElasticSearch open-source as a paid service
- ElasticSearch was not happy about this and changed their license
- Amazon forked ElasticSearch (the open-source version) and created OpenSearch based on that, continuing to serve OpenSearch
- (Few years pass)
- Amazon and ElasticSearch are now buddies
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…
> to publish all of your source code if you make any changes to the product Specifically, this is the text [0]: > 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 There are a few companies who try to make it sound like i…
If the AGPL is exactly as you say, I don’t see why this would be a problem for a re-seller. For a pure re-seller I don’t think the value add is provided by modifying the software.
E.g. take the example that Amazon hosts the service and integrates with their internal services etc for logging, storage, load balancing etc. If they only have to distribute the modified source, then their internal service APIs will be leaked. This is probably fine most of the time, but what if the API reveals too much of the secret sauce (very unlikely, but possible so necessary for legal CYA, or extra approvals every time you want to modify the AGPL code). In a more devil’s advocate reading, the following stands out (IANAL, just conjecturing):
> all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code
Do I need to include my super secret storage engine X because my modification requires that I use it? Let’s say I write the code in a way that it is an optional dependency, but because of a programming mistake, a single version goes out where it becomes a non-optional dependency, do I now have to include it (for the users of that version)?
In an even more contrived case, let’s say I integrate it with a vendor closed source program X. The virality is impossible to satisfy, unless I negotiate an AGPL license for X.
> Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication
Intimate data communication is pretty vague. Imagine the AGPL is a database, and I write a custom storage engine. Naively that seems pretty intimate to me.
Either correctly or incorrectly (because it’s never been tested), the perceived virality of AGPL is probably a major reason, regardless of the actual intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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" "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…
The words of the license are "You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service, where the service provides users with access to any substantial set of the features or functionality of the software.". I don't think competing with ElasticSearch is mentioned anywhere within the license. If team 1 uses ElasticSearch and team 2 is developing RAG (without using ES), then that's not an issue…