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.
Red Hat (my employer currently) is typically in the same boat here and it drives me crazy how people don't think about that before criticizing.
People love to say, "Red Hat couldn't exist without <project>" which is true, but what they don't realize is that a ton (sometimes all) of the development of that upstream project is done by Red Hat employees. Without that a lot of projects may not even exist.
There are no doubt "open source" companies that take more than they give, but it's a little more nuanced and complicated than people make it out to be.
The whole narrative of "company X is offering Elasticsearch as a service and not contributing back!" is ridiculous. First of all, the whole point of free software is that somebody somewhere is going to be making money with that software, and that's okay, regardless of contribution. Second of all, in practice companies like Elastic will always exaggerate the extent to which corporations aren't "contributing back".
What they really mean is Amazon isn't contributing financially to Elastic Co. That's what they're pissed about, and that's why they clearly wish they were actually in the business of proprietary software (which they now are)
No, the point of free software is that users of the software have the freedom to use the software, redistribute the software, modify the software, and redistribute modified versions of the software. Someone making money using those abilities is incidental to the actual goal.
The thing is "really hard to get patches merged" is a fuzzy barrier. There are many, many example of what most would consider reasonably maintainers where companies just don't contribute back. Even in breach of GPL.
If they're not viable as a business, they die and nobody benefits from that.
It's this kind of all or nothing criticism that has made me rethink open source. I'm releasing a product this year, and it's going to start under a proprietary license. Because it seems you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. At least commercial closed source products don't attract this kind of criticism.
I for one will (with a few exceptions) only pay for a product that is open source (at least enough so that I can self-host for my own product if I want should things change). Vendor lock-in is a serious problem and concern for many, and open source is how you address that concern. The best example is GitLab, which gets a ton of money from me that would otherwise go to GitHub (which I like better) if GH were open source.
By going proprietary you avoid the vocal minority on the internet, but you also (silently) shrink your potential customer pool. Especially with the AWS/Parler stuff, there are even more people that want the option to self-host in case they get de-platformed if the Overton Window continues to shift.
May I ask what your product is? Just curious :-)
That's usually the case.
> at least enough so that I can self-host for my own product ... Vendor lock-in is a serious problem
I'm leery of vendor lock-in myself. Self-hosted will be the only way to run my product in the beginning, and the cloud service will follow when it's popular enough to make sense.
> May I ask what your product is? Just curious :-)
I haven't published the website yet (it will be at https://flowstate.dev), but it's a framework/runtime for building backend APIs using SQL and JavaScript. It lets you run SQL queries from the browser, among other things. Which sounds crazy, but it actually works well. Once I have a hosted cloud service it becomes a backend-as-a-service platform kind of like Parse or Firebase.
I'm not against open-sourcing it down the road, but it can't be an OSI license, and I'll wait until it's big enough that I'm less worried about competitors just lifting my source code. I know copyright laws protect against that, but that only matters if you have the resources to litigate.
I do want my users to be able to dig into the source if the documentation is lacking, and also to patch/modify it if they need to - so I need some kind of source-visible license down the road. I think I would also add a clause that if the company goes under or gets acquired and shutdown then all source code gets published under the Apache 2 license.
Rather at the "expense" of Amazon AWS
It gets more code into the open, where's the disconnect?
If something satisfies the four freedoms [0], it is free software.
Nonetheless I don't agree with the GNU's claim that copyleft doesn't reduce freedoms. Of course a permissive license provides more freedoms: it's right there in the name
But this issue isn't really about permissive vs copyleft licensing anyway: Had Apache used a copyleft license with Lucene, Elasticsearch would have never existed.
Lucene is a library, you can hardly offer it as SaaS. It's gluework.
On the other hand, Elastic is much more enduser software, which is much more routinely abused for SaaS hosting by larger corporations.
I have no issue with whatever license they choose, but let's be honest, its not about contributing back to these projects, its inserting a poison pill clause that they know cloud providers can't meet.
Specifically, by contributing back they mean, per the license: "If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the *Service Source Code* available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License."