Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

elastic.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 378 posts

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#231

Post by VoxPelli »

VoxPelli wrote: post #180

Seems like there’s no talk on why they picked SSPL over BSL? I like BSL because it always eventually transitions to an ordinary open source license. So over time all BSL licensed code will actually be open source. That seems to not be the case with SSPL? Good post on BSL: https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/

Also, note that Google prohibits all use of SSPL just like it prohibits use of AGPL: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#agpl-aff...

It also prohibits use of Business Source Licensed software, but as source code under that license will always after at most 4 years transition to a GPL compatible license, all such code will eventually be possible to use at Google and one can easily maintain a GPL-compatible fork that merges code in as the BUSL expires, thus enabling a good exchange between BUSL and open source, whereas no such exchange is possible with SSPL, its forever stuck in a AGPL like license and most companies generally stay far far away from AGPL.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#232

Post by paxys »

lacker wrote: post #143

I'm glad that the SSPL is becoming more of a standard for this sort of "open source minus AWS" software. One of the benefits of standard open source licenses is that it's easier for companies to give blanket permission, "you can use software that's MIT licensed". Hopefully it becomes easier for companies to just pick whether they say "we allow the use of SSPL'd software" or "we do not allow the use of SSPL'd software…

I agree with the overall principle, but SSPL's wording itself is very problematic. They need to do a much better job in disambiguating (1) what is considered hosting vs just using and (2) what are the obligations of a hosting service in order to abide by the license. The license is simply too vague about these points, and the generally agreed upon lines today might not hold up the first time someone goes to court over it.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#233

Post by Paul-ish »

sytse wrote: post #36
sciurus wrote: post #35

Here's the actual change: > Starting with the upcoming Elastic 7.11 release, we will be moving the Apache 2.0-licensed code of Elasticsearch and Kibana to be dual licensed under SSPL and the Elastic License, giving users the choice of which license to apply. So starting with 7.11 no parts of Elasticsearch will be released under an open source license. They aren't making everything SSPL, though. Their paid features co…

SSPL is based on the GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare... So apart from adding the cloud non-compete clause (don't offer Elastic as a Service) there are many more restrictions added compared to Apache 2. For example I think linking can only happen with GPL3 code and it is copylefted instead of permissive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_…

This doesn't add non-compete clause.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#234

Post by metreo »

It seems like overall this was a long time coming and there had been precedence with MongoDB prior to as well. It's never a good thing to think that open source developers need to divert attention to such seemingly hostile actions though it seems credible enough that is was necessary for that reason.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#235

Post by pnw_hazor »

matthewowen wrote: post #131
ignoramous wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA explains why Elasticsearch switching to SSPL is indeed a cause for concern. Money quotes: > Basically, it’s a hostile proprietary license masquerading in open source clothing. By using an SSPL project in your code, you are agreeing that if you provide an online service using that code then you will release not only that code but also the code for every supporting piece of software, all under the SSPL. > It’s not…

How true is this, in practice? I hear software folks say this sort of thing somewhat frequently, but I haven't heard it from a _legal_ person. And my general sense and understanding is that although an FAQ style clarification is not _perfect_, it _does_ carry non-trivial weight. Judges are not totally capricious people making arbitrary decisions: the notion that in a dispute they would just cast aside one party's _cl…

Ambiguities result in increased litigation expense. Each argument over what a term means or how it should be interpreted is very expensive. These kinds of disagreements often need to be resolved early in the case by expensive motion practice.

It is much cheaper if both sides are willing to stipulate that they are in agreement with what the terms mean. Then you can get to fact finding and settlement talks with less upfront cost.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#236

Post by Xylakant »

confiq wrote: post #220
ignoramous wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS wouldn't, I presume, touch the 7.11 dual-licensed Elasticsearch release with a ten-foot pole. They would have to hard-fork it here on, or Gold+ partner with Elastic.co to sell Elasticsearch Service under the relatively more permissive Elastic License .

what do you mean by "hard-fork" ? I thought that open distro is "hard-fork" but licence stayed apache https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/

Opendistro is primarily a set of plugins for the stock APL ES distribution, not a fork of elasticsearch proper.

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#237

Post by paxys »

bevacqua wrote: post #33
shawnz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elasticsearch couldn't exist without the open source Lucene project which is at its core. Lucene is licensed under the permissive Apache license which is why Elastic is able to release proprietary paid modules that link with it. Now they are closing the same holes that they themselves used to create their product. Contributing back is definitely the last thing on their minds.

Elastic contributes massively to Lucene, so this is a false dichotomy

When then is SSPL still enforced on those who contribute to Elasticsearch?

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#239

Post by sgtfrankieboy »

Aeolun wrote: post #230
jnwatson wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that nobody buys AWS ElasticSearch because of quality. They buy it because they already have AWS approved as a vendor and a blank check to spend on it.

Yeah, so they’re not really competing with Elastic right? If I already have an AWS environment I’m never going to use an Elastic hosted service, since it’d be outside my VPC. I really don’t understand how that business model works.

But what if the customer needs ElasticSearch, see that AWS provides it and don't look further?

If AWS didn't take the work of Elastic those customers might have used Elastic's services instead.

How can AWS offering the same thing not be competing against Elastic's offering?

Re: Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

#240

Post by paxys »

lazyant wrote: post #226

Am I interpreting this correctly that on and after v7.11 users won't be able to use Amazon Elasticsearch Service (unless AWS contributes back)?

You are correct. And "contributes back" would mean having to open source all of AWS, so they aren't going to update Elasticsearch beyond v7.10. They'll likely hard fork it and continue to develop it themselves.
Post reply on HN