upvote

points

by maest9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby alexey-salmin8 hours ago|
[-]
I can't? I mean, if Amazon does commercial version of Elastic better than Elastic themselves then so be it. I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not.

I do see issues with monopolies pushing inferior products onto users. But that would be a completely different issue, nothing to do with open source.

reply
upvoteby gcr1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Don’t you see how bankrupting the Elastic devs pushes an inferior product onto users?
reply
upvoteby dns_snek6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not.

According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem. Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?

reply
upvoteby alexey-salmin2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem.

I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license.

> Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?

They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.

reply
upvoteby dns_snek53 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license.

Because parasitic antisocial behavior is viewed negatively.

> They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.

Trying to apply market dynamics to selling things you didn't produce (or pay for) is fascinating...

reply
upvoteby gcr1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
They both sell it for profit, but Amazon doesn’t contribute changes upstream, so the public + rest of the industry won’t benefit from their work. It’s not an equivalence.
reply
upvoteby DangitBobby55 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because you don't see AWS as having sort of moral or ethical duties. I see all companies and people as having moral and ethical duties.
reply
upvoteby Orygin3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Why isn't this a problem for other databases then? I'm sure most cloud sell some MariaDB services. Why would they be able to profit from it?

It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.

reply
upvoteby dns_snek1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Why isn't this a problem for other databases then?

It is?

- MongoDB went from AGPL to SSPL

- Redis went from BSD to SSPL

- Elasticsearch went from AGPL to SSPL

- CockroachDB went from Apache to BSL

- TimescaleDB went from Apache to Apache + TLS

- Graylog went from GPL to SSPL

> It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.

That's why intellectual property law exist. If I spent years writing a book and you were allowed to copy it and sell it then obviously you're going to "out compete" me by default. You didn't incur any costs in producing the thing you're selling, duh!

reply
upvoteby Orygin8 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes and the result is these databases got forked, and the community got rightfully mad.

But other databases don't need it, and stayed truly open source, because their business model doesn't rely on being the only hosting provider.

> You didn't incur any costs in producing the thing you're selling, duh!

Indeed, you gave it away for free, saying I could sell it... It doesn't take a business genius to know AWS can undercut your hosting services.

It goes to show that most of these companies don't really care about open source. They cared more about making money and open source was a useful facade to get people to contribute for free.

reply
upvoteby JambalayaJimbo6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I mean it’s a free country either way then. Elastic can change the licensing and Amazon is then free to compete with a fork of the software pre-licensing change.

Amazon doesn’t really have a leg to stand on in objection here. Building a platform to re-sell an open source project may end up fracturing that open source community’s user base, that’s a consequence of their own actions.

reply