Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana

Re:Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana by ignoramous on Friday January 15, 2021 @02:53AM (#25788137)

I write F/OSS full-time.

AWS does / did contribute patches to Elasticsearch.

The problem Elasticsearch has is, AWS shares none of the gigantic profits it makes from its Elasticsearch Service, which is a double whammy because it cannibalizes Elastic's own SaaS offering.

> To conclude, that sounds like false equivalency to me. It does matter who is using it for free and profiting.

You mean to say, Facebook must share a % of its WhatsApp profits with ejabberd, or ejabberd otherwise is right to SSPL their software?

Or, Google pay Oracle a share of the spoils because it is an "app container layer" on top of Java/JVM? And that Oracle is okay to switch to SSPL otherwise in search of those dollars?

Or, okay if CnFdn SSPLs k8s?

Also, if it matters whoever profits contributes back monetarily, may be the right way to do so would be via a Foundation. Using the Commons Clause or SSPL is not the answer, in my eyes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Licensing changes to Elasticsearch and Kibana by erezsh on Friday January 15, 2021 @10:36AM (#25792079)

> AWS does / did contribute patches to Elasticsearch.

That's a meaningless statement, since it could just as well mean that they contributed back 2 hours of work.

> * is okay to switch to SSPL ???

Yes, absolutely. Why not?

The article you linked doesn't mention anything about foundations. But let's agree not every open-source project can become one.

[ Parent | on HN ]