Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by VoxPelli on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @10:55AM (#25834669)

I think both are at fault. Amazon for provoking this and Elastic for over-reacting like this and totally break with the open source licensing, when that isn’t necessary to stop Amazon. They could do like MariaDB rather than follow MongoDB: https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/ Would be much more appropriate and alienate the open source community much less.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by dhd415 on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:06AM (#25834802)

Notably, they are apparently considering that: https://www.elastic.co/blog/license-change-clarification

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by StavrosK on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @10:58AM (#25834700)

Hmm, what's the difference between the BSL and Elastic's license?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by detaro on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:14AM (#25834881)

Code converts to an open-source license after X (e.g. 4) years in BSL. Time will tell how it works out, especially for mature products it could just mean that everyone targets the 4 year old version.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by VoxPelli on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @02:41PM (#25837846)

Time will also tell how eg. SSPL will work if eg. Elastic becomes bankrupt, what happens if I can't get a commercial license for it anymore in 10-20 years? BSL:s expire clause ensures that old code never gets unavailable because the business entity has vanished. Does SSPL have any similar protection?

[ Parent | on HN ]