Elasticsearch AWS License Dispute

Ironically AWS (and probably Google) is the reason why they had to adopt that kind of license since they are not giving back. Obviously AWS is not tied by the license but it would make sense for them to sponsor the product instead of milking it entirely. Elastic is having similar issues with AWS.

Elastic forced the fork. AWS was contributing and complying with the license. Why should AWS not be allowed to make insane profits off open source?

For context, Elasticsearch merged their proprietary add-ons into the main repos https://www.elastic.co/blog/doubling-down-on-open and MongoDB relicensed to a not-quite-open-source license that compels you to release code for your entire infrastructure if you're running MongoDB as a servie <a href="https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-lice

You must be referring to the "love-hate" relationship between Amazon and open source software as described eg here?https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazon-and-commercial-open-sou..."Vendors developing those open source products started accusing AWS of strip mining, i.e., reaping the benefits of the products, with

Oh I assumed that someone would do it. I just didn't expect it to be AWS. Elastic is popular enough and the core open source license permissive enough that I expected some sort of fork eventually. The license of the original project is an important factor in this. For example, I wouldn't expect a fork of MongoDB because of the limitations of the AGPL license make it less appealing. With that case I'd expect what AWS already did, which was to create an API compatible system. Also n

I'm a bit disappointed by all the good guy/bad guy judgement going on here on HN, when both players are working with the market forces to get the best result.From AWS' perspective, taking an OSS Project and offering it as a hosted solution is legally fine.Elastic isn't happy about the fact that AWS make more profit from their OSS product than themselves, so they recognize that OSS isn't their best approach anymore, and do it differently.AWS decides that forking

A lot of AWS's managed services are just off the shelf open source projects on the backend.Amazon can afford to fork the project and poach top talent from your company. I think these moves are extremely short-sighted.Changing license models only causes instability in the overall ecosystem.

I do not get why people are coming down on AWS here. Elastic made the software available under the Apache License. That gives AWS the right to offer this service. Maybe they did not have right to trademarks, there are courts to settle that.AWS contributes improvements to the project. This is just about Elastic and their business model. They could have not made it open source and it probably just would not have been widely used and successful. It is up to Elastic to come up with a business mod

The whole move to new "open-core" licenses started with the most famous (infamous?) AGPL project - MongoDB. The AGPL is not what companies like this want (Mongo, Elastic, Redis etc). They don't want AWS's code: AWS is already providing that. They want AWS to pay them royalties or stop competing.

Totally agree. I think you could also say a similar thing about Amazon however: they are benefiting off of the permissive license Elastic chose to use, without the drawback of having to spend developer time improving the open source project they are profiting from.