News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing. Parent comment

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by StavrosK on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:07AM (#25834811)
> There aren't simple clear answers to these questions, only a slowly evolving discussion.

Certainly, and I think that if we want OSS to thrive we need to move towards a future where it's easy for companies to make a return on their investment by releasing OSS. I think Amazon and all the "I provide your software as a service" providers eat into that and hinder that future.

Yes, GPLv3 was meant to fight Tivoization, but it never anticipated providers providing services on an OSS product without contributing significantly, in combination with the companies that develop the OSS hoping to make money off the same hosted service that the former undercuts.

Basically, monetization strategies for OSS are few, and one that is beneficial for both the company and the consumer is providing hosted services. A third company that doesn't have to develop the software is usually a good enough competitor, but since the developer has the obvious support/knowledge advantage, they can still compete. This breaks down when Amazon comes in with its lock-in advantage and sucsk all the money away from the developer.

This is why we're seeing these new licenses, because there's no way currently to be "OSS except Amazon". I think we do need to figure out some way.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by jabl on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @04:25PM (#25839079)
> Yes, GPLv3 was meant to fight Tivoization, but it never anticipated providers providing services on an OSS product without contributing significantly

Well, the so-called "service provider loophole" was certainly well-known when GPLv3 was drafted. That's why AGPLv2 was created some years prior. IIRC early GPLv3 drafts contained AGPL-style language, but several of the companies involved in the GPLv3 drafting process (such as Google) objected, and those clauses were withdrawn from the final GPLv3.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by SpicyLemonZest on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:32AM (#25835139)
But imagine where we'd be if this discussion had happened 30 years ago, in the days when the monetization model was charging a distribution fee. How much of the modern Internet would have had to be excluded from free software licensing to protect that? I have no issue with tweaking OSS licenses to respond to the circumstances of the times, but tweaking them in order to ensure I can make lots of money seems anti-competitive and anti-innovative.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by StavrosK on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:36AM (#25835181)
I agree, but I think it's generally "tweaking the rules so they can stay alive" at this point, ie not about increasing an already big revenue stream.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by SpicyLemonZest on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:44AM (#25835272)
That's certainly what it looks like Elastic is trying to imply, but their revenue was over $400 million last year.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by toomuchtodo on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @12:40PM (#25836125)
For comparison, AWS does about $40B/year in revenue.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by fakedang on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:32AM (#25835133)
I believe in a previous thread, someone suggested OSS except companies having this much of a revenue (since market cap is a bit of a variable metric). Why wouldn't that be a viable model?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by lacker on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @12:56PM (#25836383)
I wouldn't use software like that. Imagine you build a company using some software, and it was free until you hit $X in revenue. One day far down the road, your company is doing well and you start to get close to $X. You realize you have to acquire a license, ask them for one, and now... you just have to pay whatever they ask for? You're locked in to someone who could quote you whatever price they want. Unless it's really easy to rip out this software, it seems like a huge pain.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by StavrosK on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:37AM (#25835190)
I would love that, and think it's a great model (basically "you don't have to pay us if/while you aren't making money from this"), but as far as I understand it, it's hard to enforce. Amazon can just make a subsidiary that makes less than that amount (or no money at all) and skirt that requirement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by pydry on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @02:27PM (#25837663)
Easy to work around with "hollywood accounting". Amazon could license the software from a shell company they own that makes very little revenue.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by SpicyLemonZest on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:42AM (#25835251)
It would be a much stronger restriction than they're looking for. If no developer at Amazon, Google, etc. is allowed to even use Elasticsearch, that severely impairs the viability of the project. (Depending on the revenue threshold, it could end up being a problem for Elastic too - they're not exactly a small company.)
[ Parent | on HN ]