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

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by spzb on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @12:38PM (#25836089)

You don't fix trademarks disputes by changing software licenses. Elastic appear to have a sound argument on the trademark front but to conflate that with changing the license of their product is disingenuous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by ethbr0 on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @12:44PM (#25836185)

I read their argument as 'suing Amazon in the courts for trademark infringement is an insufficiently expedient remedy.'

It does OSS no good if Elastic prevails on merits the day after they go out of business from lost revenue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by spzb on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @12:57PM (#25836401)

And what remedy do they have to a copyright license infringement? The same glacial pace legal system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by chippiewill on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @03:28PM (#25838449)

The damages and ramifications for violating software copyright are much clearer than the nuanced world of trademark infringement.

The change in ElasticSearch license here is well publicised. If AWS were to continue to incorporate new changes to ElasticSearch it would be obvious they had deliberately violated the terms of the license and it's much easier to pursue a legal case.

[ Parent | on HN ]