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

401–410 of 473 posts

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#401

Post by skrtskrt »

tensor wrote: post #384
lolinder wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 client talks to service A, which talks to AGPL service B, I assume that would count as having to "prominently offer the source code for service B". No? If that's true, then it becomes a real pain to track all the places where an end user could indirectly come in contact with service B. If that's not how to interpret the license then wouldn't a simple API gateway or proxy circumvent it?

> then it becomes a real pain to track all the places where an end user could indirectly come in contact with service B

Easy solution: then you just publish your patches for anyone to get. Or just anyone with a login to your SaaS. If you haven't changed anything then they can just get the original source themselves.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#403

Post by skrtskrt »

ratorx wrote: post #149
lolinder wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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…

> 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.

No. What URLs the logs are sent to is just a config option - probably not even for the hosted software, probably for the kubernetes pod - not source code. If the logging exporter has to speak a magical protocol to send to Amazon's internal logging, that's Amazon's problem - they can either write a shim service to translate the protocol and then they have to publish nothing, or they'd have to publish their changes that allows talking to the magical internal logging protocol.

> Do I need to include my super secret storage engine X because my modification requires that I use it

If you are hosting the software with your super secret storage engine, then you have to be ready to provide the modified software code to anyone who uses it. If all your users are internal then cool you get to keep it internal - though there's no restrictions on who they can send that code to.

You modified the code to improve it for a use case. The whole point of AGPL is that you if you start distributing that modification then you don't get to keep it a secret and prevent it from being upstreamed. The original project might not even be interested in your changes if it's only for some super specific use case.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#404

Post by bdcravens »

csdreamer7 wrote: post #204
bdcravens wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to a quick search, there are 33M "users" of Linux (I suspect that number is way too low). Only 15k have contributed to the kernel. That's an "exploitation" rate of well over 99.9%.

> According to a quick search, there are 33M "users" of Linux (I suspect that number is way too low). Only 15k have contributed to the kernel. That's an "exploitation" rate of well over 99.9%. This is very misleading. There is a lot more code than just the kernel for the Linux operating system. If you ran the numbers for a default install of Ubuntu or RHEL that would be far more useful. The Linux kernel requires far…

You're right; that's just an example. Even if we included all components, and bumped that contributor number up to 1M, we're talking about 97% "exploitation". My point was that pretty much every open source project is almost entirely usage vs contribution and that claims of exploiting open source are a non sequitur.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#405

Post by arp242 »

prepend wrote: post #369
arp242 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really interested in discussing the merits of the argument (or lack thereof); I've done this a dozen times over the last few years and I have no interest in repeating it. I am just saying your post hugely misrepresented the argument. That you think the argument is a load of bollocks changes nothing about that.

It’s unfortunate you don’t want to discuss the merits of my argument. Not to give out advice, but if your aim isn’t to learn and debate and change minds and be changed, what’s your point? Do you just want to make noise or something? I would like to properly characterize the argument to understand all sides. Because I want more great software to exist in the world. My belief is that the way to do this is to have peopl…

> Do you just want to make noise or something?

So correcting your enormous straw-man of misinformation is "noise"? Oh just sod off with your bollocks.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#406

Post by willcipriano »

batch12 wrote: post #364
willcipriano wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? What was paid that now this is owed?

We've become too accepting of trivial bugs and logic issues that could have been identified through proper quality controls.

You should protest.

Demand your money back.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#407

Post by consteval »

sneak wrote: post #293
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…

The AGPL is more restrictive than the nonfree license because the AGPL is also a nonfree license. I await the day that the industry corrects itself and stops calling the AGPL open source/free software. It isn’t. It is very obviously a EULA, despite what the anticapitalist zealots at the FSF wish to claim.

> It is very obviously a EULA

It's really not, because the end users of your service, that being whoever consumes them, does not care about the AGPL and CAN close source their code.

If I call an AGPL service I can do that from a proprietary application. What I can't do is publish an AGPL service, modify that service, and then hide the modifications. So it works just like GPL in that way except instead of, like, including it's publishing an internet-available service.

Companies are super scared of AGPL but that's just because they're scaredy cats (sorry, "risk averse"). But no, you're free to publish an AGPL service and you can even monetize it, if you want. You're also free on the client-side to do whatever and have whatever license you want for your code.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#408

Post by willcipriano »

indymike wrote: post #372
willcipriano wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Why is security free? People don't want to get hurt, physically, emotionally, financially. > Not just in software but in general? People being harmed is very expensive. > you need to pay tribute to those who can This is a very primordial view of things. Security and safety are literally the underpinning of modern, western society. The cost of that security is baked into prices for services and products, taxes and l…

> People don't want to get hurt, physically, emotionally, financially.

People don't want to be hungry, people don't want to be cold, people don't want to be bored.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#409

Post by OldOneEye »

nijave wrote: post #330
redwood wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, did you pursue a rev share model with Elastic (Co) for your Elastic managed service? I guess that's not something thay can be discussed openly but recognizing you probably had 10x their revenue in the managed service and another 10x their revenue in compute behind the OSS, I wonder if there could have been a proactive happy middle ground found years ago. I suppose that they might not have accepted s…

From previous threads, my understanding is Elastic is a pretty arduous enterprise sales process which turned a lot of small/mid customers away. High vendor management overhead is a huge pain for smaller companies that don't have robust IT to manage those relationships. The smaller/mid size startups I've worked at almost never acquire "enterprise" software and always leverage pay-by-credit-card type SaaS Besides opera…

About this topic I'm going to say that at my company we had to choose a managed solution for logs, and there were several contenders. I strongly wanted to use the service offered by Elastic, the company, as we were already managing a lot of biggish clusters and we thought that going with the company behind it would be the best thing to do.

But they made it very difficult to try it out at scale (we generate quite a lot of logs) and at one point they only wanted to talk to the CTO instead of the persons in charge of the PoCs.

That move made them untrustable to me, and they were disqualified from the process. If they wanted to compete on selling the solution to non-technical people that told us all we needed to know about them and how support would be. We ended up choosing managed Opensearch by AWS, which was a shitshow in several fronts. I wish we had given Loki a bigger chance at that time. We've ended up migrating to it anyway.

Post reply on HN