> There is a huge difference between you doing something for your in-house use, and Amazon doing something in order to turn around and re-sell it.

Is there? Or is it your bias against commercialization or profit motive of modifications to free software? It seems to me that it's the same changes to the code.

I think they're talking about the scale of the tooling and integrations into existing systems required to roll out Grafana to hundreds of thousands of people.

> This is always easier if the starting point of that two-pizza team is fairly close to "clone the version that already works, change the name, and run the deploy script".

This model only works with the OSS/community versions of software. If the the only value of your hosted offering is the hosting I would expect you to get eaten by a company with cheaper hosting costs than you. I'm talking specifically about a clean-room reimplementation of proprietary add-ons that typically make up the "enterprise" version of lots of software.

> If the the only value of your hosted offering is the hosting I would expect you to get eaten by a company with cheaper hosting costs than you

By this logic Google and Amazon should just own-all-the-things because they have the cheapest hosting costs?

> I'm talking specifically about a clean-room reimplementation of proprietary add-ons that typically make up the "enterprise" version of lots of software.

I don't know what you mean here. As far as I know this is not what is being discussed. Amazon has done no "clean-room reimplementation" here.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if you write a piece of OSS software and your plan to monetize it is just hosting it then you're going to get eaten by companies who are better at hosting than you. Your valuable asset and your core business is your software not your ops.

Next, if the way you plan to monetize your OSS software is by selling a proprietary "enterprise" version but the features that version includes are easy to clone and your licensing costs are high then large companies will just hire people to develop their own in-house version and they might kill your business by open sourcing their version because they don't need to sell their in-house version to make it worth the cost.

Maybe they're referring to DocumentDB versus Mongodb? My understanding was documentdb was wire compatible but a clean room reimplementation of it?

It's always amusing when I see corporate engineers espouse some open source value and then follow it up with, "That's how it's supposed to be!" They totally ignore that if you entirely profit off of grafana and then destroy grafana labs in the process then they will be the maintainers of grafana and since that will go well beyond a "two pizza team" AWS will drop it.

tldr: corporate engineers have to be trained to respect and understand open source and it's just weird.

> There is a huge difference between you doing something for your in-house use, and Amazon doing something in order to turn around and re-sell it.

There really isn't. If you make your work available to the world so that everyone has the right to not only use it as they see fit but also extend it to fit their needs then you cannot complain that someone is using said work as they see fit and extending it to fit their needs.

I am not wholly convinced.

There is a considerable problem in enterprise software where trivial features are enormously expensive. If you hide all of the useful authentication features behind thousands (or tens, or hundreds of thousands) them don’t be surprised when somebody scoops you.

Value add needs to be more like added value than ransom.

But that's because the non-trivial stuff, the real meat of the core product, is free right? Almost every dual (or more) priced (core) source available (at least) is enterprises with the money subsidising it for people/companies for whom the alternative is not to use it, not to pay for it.

If you have any emotional response like that it's 'ransom', then you're probably not the target audience for the enterprise tier.

(And I don't mean that you don't need/can't make use of features hidden in that tier, just that if there are many in the same boat, then the provider misjudged the contents of that tier.)

I get the feeling you are talking about Elastic here, and I 100% agree that core authentication and security features (and sane defaults) being "Enterprise" is a bonkers decision.

Core authentication and security features in Elasticsearch have been free and not Enterprise features since last May: https://www.elastic.co/blog/security-for-elasticsearch-is-no...

Disclosure: I work for AWS

Free for some to use under certain restrictions. Therefore not Open Source (which is totally OK, I just want to make sure there's no confusion).

Sweet, I didn't know that had changed. Good decision.