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

Elasticsearch is open source, again

elastic.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 473 posts

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#311

Post by sanderjd »

chadash wrote: post #69

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…

This is exactly where I'm at.

I find what seems to be the prevailing opinion of people here (and in similar places) of passionate opposition to these kinds of licenses to be very mystifying.

It seems to me like they hit a pretty good spot on the continuum of trade-offs here.

I might add one, which is related to your third bullet point, but which I avail myself of far more often:

* If I'm confused by how something seems to work, I can read the implementation.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#312

Post by batch12 »

willcipriano wrote: post #304
_pdp_ wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately many companies charge extra for security where security should be the default. Truth to be told there some some situations where extra security costs could be justified but there are not many if charge is necessary it should be considered as a temporary measure. My $0.02.

[flagged]

Software should be secure by default. No defense of honor is necessary.

> This line of thinking has lead to many foreign wars of choice, where we send young men to die and our nation recieved nothing in exchange. "It was the right thing to do" is uttered by those who did nothing

I am not able to find any references to the war of regression or the battle of cve-2021-44228, so I'll have to call nonsense on this one.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#313

Post by hashtag-til »

zymhan wrote: post #180
bytearray wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are we appreciating exactly?

Maybe a ridiculous writing style for a blog post about software licensing?

Came here looking whether anyone else found the weird teenager writing style getting on the way of the real message.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#315

Post by willcipriano »

batch12 wrote: post #312
willcipriano wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Software should be secure by default. No defense of honor is necessary. > This line of thinking has lead to many foreign wars of choice, where we send young men to die and our nation recieved nothing in exchange. "It was the right thing to do" is uttered by those who did nothing I am not able to find any references to the war of regression or the battle of cve-2021-44228, so I'll have to call nonsense on this one.

Why?

What was paid that now this is owed?

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#316

Post by [deleted] »

js4ever wrote: post #249
lolinder wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you tell them that it's deploy OpenSearch or buy an Elastic license, not mentioning that they could also legally deploy their own Elastic?

If only they had the skills to deploy and maintain it sure. But they don't so they ask services companies/DevOps to do it for them. No need to be AWS to be affected by SSPL

[deleted]

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#318

Post by _cenw »

weinzierl wrote: post #292
adrianco wrote: post #257

Here’s the initial AWS response to the license change that they made in 2018, which I helped write. At the time we didn’t think a new license made sense, as AGPL is sufficient to block AWS from using the code, but the core of the issue was that AWS wanted to contribute security features to the open source project and Elastic wanted to keep security as an enterprise feature, so rejected all the approaches AWS made at…

"as AGPL is sufficient to block AWS from using the code" I have taken this position in another thread a while ago, but the responses seemed to indicate that this is not a clearly cut situation at all. If it was, what is the point of the "source-available" licenses in the first place? I mean, the idea that they were invented to cut out AWS is pretty prevalent, no?

There's enough legal uncertainty about API calls being considered linking that it keeps coming up. Minio are probably at the forefront of claiming this somewhat implicitly while referring you to your lawyer (or their pricing page, preferably) when asked about how they understand the AGPL.

FSF/GNU have an example of an AGPL proxy becoming compliant by serving it a page with the offer to download source code on the first request, pretty far off from reality if you ask me. That's also the big other issue, AGPL is unclear about conveyance over a network. Does a header work? Does a link to the source repo work or do you need to offer hard copies? What do you do if the "networking" is a highly specific protocol that simply can't make that offer over the wire?

I much prefer the clarity of intent of the EUPL.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#319

Post by ensignavenger »

tsimionescu wrote: post #228
ratorx wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not great for the re-seller 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 inte…

The two parts you quote apply just as much to the GPL as to the AGPL. And virtually every company today uses GPL software in some fashion. Also, AWS did offer at least one AGPL service, managed MongoDB. They still offer it, Mongo just changed their license precisely because the AGPL didn't protect them from Amazon in the way they were hoping.

Amazon has never offered MongoDB. They implemented thier own DB that was (maybe still is?) API compatible with Mongo.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#320

Post by [deleted] »

andrewmutz wrote: post #113

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN