AWS has been doing things that are 'just NOT OK since 2015,' says Elastic as firm yanks Apache 2.0 licence

Elastic CEO and co-founder Shay Banon has attacked AWS for what he claims is unacceptable use of the open-source Elasticsearch product and trademark. Banon's post is part of the company's defence of its decision to drop the open-source Apache 2.0 licence for its ElasticSearch and Kibana products and instead use the copyleft …

[Phil O'Sophical]

Not the first time

In the days when people distributed software as "shareware" it was not unusual to find license terms which allowed free non-commercial use, but expected commercial businesses to pay for it (or simply not to use it).

The arrival of the open source mindset, and especially the "commercial software is evil" attitude from people like Stallman and the FSF, has led to many people releasing software as "free" without really thinking through the consequences. It's all very well to put something out there with no strings attached, either just to be 'nice', or to avoid responsibility to support it, but that comes with a price: anyone can use it according to the "free" license that you chose, and you don't get to complain later that it's "unfair" for them to make money doing so.

[FIA]

Re: Not the first time

Exactly!

Developing software is hard, and time consuming, so why not spend even a fraction of that considering what licence you use as that literally affects everything that happens from there-on. Elastic search arrived after the rise of AWS and Google so knowing the way cloud providers 'take advantage' of the the open source world isn't really an excuse IMHO. (Although, arguably as it was Apache licenced this isn't true, Apache is very permissive. I do always feel the spirit of the GPL is being violated by the big cloudy people... if not the actual letter.... But then maybe if this was a real ideological problem for people we'd have GPL4 by now.... who knows?)

This happened to WINE years ago. They said 'Here's WINE, do what you want...' (It was initially MIT licenced), then got annoyed when someone did.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not the first time

> the "commercial software is evil" attitude from people like Stallman and the FSF

This is a mischaracterisation. Stallman and the FSF are not against "commercial" software, they are against *proprietary* software; that is, software over which the end user does not have control.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html

> “Commercial” and “proprietary” are not the same! Commercial software is software developed by a business as part of its business. Most commercial software is proprietary, but there is commercial free software, and there is noncommercial nonfree software.

[FIA]

Re: Not the first time

This is a mischaracterisation. Stallman and the FSF are not against "commercial" software, they are against *proprietary* software; that is, software over which the end user does not have control.

Okay, I suppose these days you can sign and encrypt binaries, but I always thought this attitude was just lazy people not being bothered to learn bytecode. :) :) :)

(My slightly more serious point is the line is somewhat arbitary, is it more work to objdump a simple (but closed source) utility than it is to properly understand and work on a large, complex, but open source, software project, such as a browser for example.

I could probably just about figure what something like 'FORMAT' on DOS does, but I'd never fully understand Chromium, despite having the sources, so I practially have the same level of control over each.

There does become a point where having the source is really no more use to the average person than not as the cost/logistical challenges involved become impractical).

[Blackjack]

Re: Not the first time

Chromium is still spyware masking itself as a web browser, even if it is slightly different from Chrome.

That's all you really need to understand about it, well that and to never use extensions.

[Anonymous Coward]

@FIA - Re: Not the first time

This is the exact outcome expected by those who launched the concept of open source: "here's the source code but you really don't need it".

There is still a difference between open source and free & open source. Open source is what it says, you have free access to source code. This is why people have been trying for a long time to poke holes in GPL in order to retain the open source part and get rid of the rest, especially the part thet prevents imposing additional restrictions when distributing the software.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @FIA - Not the first time

"Open-source software is a type of computer software in which source code is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose."

So, no - what you described is NOT the outcome expected by those who launched the concept of open source. Not even close. The point of OSS is to get people to contribute to your software without paying them, not to provide glorified debugging symbols.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not the first time

there is commercial free software, and there is noncommercial nonfree software

But only vanishingly small quantities of either. As noted, most commercial software is proprietary, and most free (in these sense of speech, not beer) software is not commercial.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not the first time

"...most free (in these sense of speech, not beer) software is not commercial."

Nope. Today most free software, in every sense of the word free, is the foundation of nearly all commercial software.

As for the article, well I'm pretty sure that today OSS, free or otherwise, is looked at as "free labor" from GitHub by all companies. Until people stop doing commercial code for free, it will continue but it seems here that one company is calling the other black, although Amazon is rightfully violating the "spirit" of free OSS more so than most.

No worries soon, it's the year of Linux on the desktop.

[Flat Phillip]

Re: Not the first time

So what you are saying is they released software based on a license they didn't understand or they have basically reneged on something they previously released.

You can't blame Stallman and FSF for this; either it is open source (and people are free to make money off the software) or it's not. It's not exactly some strange side-effect or loophole. It is right there, item #6 of the Open Source Definition.

My take is Elasticsearch has seen the $$$ AWS makes and gone... we want some of that action.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Not the first time

what you are saying is they released software based on a license they didn't understand or they have basically reneged on something they previously released.

Yes, either didn't understand, or didn't take the time to understand fully.

I wasn't suggesting that Stallman/FSF are in any way to blame, just that they have popularised a different model of OSS which people buy into without necessarily considering all the angles.

My take is Elasticsearch has seen the $$$ AWS makes and gone... we want some of that action.

Exactly, and they really should have thought of that before releasing their code as FOSS without suitable conditions.

[Chris Hills]

It makes me wonder why so many tech companies are successful in the USA where they have software patents. If Amazon had its HQ elsewhere, perhaps they would gain an even bigger advantage without having to worry about paying royalties. It also makes me wonder why Elastic have not patented their USP.

[Greybearded old scrote]

A chorus of "Oh Noes!"

The Apache 2.0 license doesn't forbid changing the terms, unlike GPL. As much as they might be disappointed, all those contributors gave permission. OTOH, it also allows the Big River to do exactly what they have been, unlike the Affero clause. So Elastic also gave permission. Did any of them think they were doing anything else?

It's a common thing to see people reject copyleft for not being permissive enough, and then get upset at the consequences.

As for AWS implementing similar features to Elastic's proprietary parts, that's called competition. Get over it.

I read elsewhere that Elastic reported record income last year. So they're not exactly being injured they just don't want to share any of what they've shared.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A chorus of "Oh Noes!"

"I read elsewhere that Elastic reported record income last year. So they're not exactly being injured they just don't want to share any of what they've shared."

You probably should read more before commenting on it.

They have reported record revenue, record revenue means nothing. Let's say I had 1 USD revenue last year, record for me. I also have 750m USD in expenses. I should be spreading that revenue love around according to you.

They reported an operating loss of 171m USD. But hey that record revenue means they are doing great.

[Greybearded old scrote]

Re: A chorus of "Oh Noes!"

Spending more than their income is unfortunate, but it's something they've done to themselves. Still not the fault of anyone who uses the freedoms that they have explicitly allowed.

Does explain the desperation though.

[womble]

Re: A chorus of "Oh Noes!"

" that's called competition. Get over it."

Boloney - its called plagiarism and anti-competitive commercialism.

AWS don't give a crap about anything but money. Get in the way and you get squashed. Open source and cloud are not compatible when companies like AWS operate like this.

Open Source Elastic will die - all thanks to Amazons' greed.

Noone will have the time or motivation to work on it, least of all AWS.

[Mike 137]

Proprietisation stikes again?

"AWS is an incredibly strong competitor. It has sharp elbows. It is also the greatest software distribution mechanism ever created, superseding the previous greatest software distribution mechanism ever created, namely open source." (emphasis added).

If this is a valid assessment it means that yet again a corporate monopolist behemoth horns in on and extinguishes a valuable social movement.

It might well be valid though, as that's the history of the entire public web.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Proprietisation stikes again?

That whole quote read like nonsense gobbledegook to me. The comparison seemed like there was some misunderstanding of what AWS is, or what open source is.

[KarMann]

Re: Proprietisation stikes again?

Or even what a software distribution mechanism is.

[doublelayer]

What "free" means

Various companies have, in recent years, started to misunderstand what free software means. Yes, it means free as in freedom of speech, but freedoms like that are not small things. Those freedoms mean that I am free to use the software in any way I like. It may be in a way that the author doesn't like, but the author doesn't get to restrict me. That freedom gives the author various advantages, including a larger user base which will occasionally contribute to the code or donate money, but it also comes with downsides, like sometimes people use it and don't pay. The author can throw up some roadblocks, like not providing compiled builds unless people pay for them, but the entire point of the freedoms allows those who are willing to go to the effort necessary to use and distribute the code under those terms.

If someone wants to extract rent from all users of the software, they can write their own license terms. It becomes proprietary, since they are demanding extra authority to restrict usage to those who pay, but it's their code, so they have the right to do that if they want to. Doing that to code produced by others is at best an incredibly disrespectful move, and can be a license violation depending on how it's done. In short, don't give people freedoms you don't intend to honor, or they will hate you.

[Nick.fox]

response from AWS

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/stepping-up-for-a-truly-open-source-elasticsearch/