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

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 ]