6 ms·

I felt like that was implied by the usage of AGPL: if Amazon wanted to start using this and apply patches on top of it, the AGPL would require that they share t

I felt like that was implied by the usage of AGPL: if Amazon wanted to start using this and apply patches on top of it, the AGPL would require that they share those patches with their customers, which would allow Elastic to integrate them into main again.

quyse 2y ago
I don't think that's their intention. Elastic wouldn't be able to integrate Amazon's patches back into their codebase without losing the ability to change the license in the future. Even more, since it's AGPL, they'd have to get rid of their other licenses immediately.
- pooper 2y ago
  > Elastic wouldn't be able to integrate Amazon's patches back into their codebase without losing the ability to change the license in the future. (I anal, even if I were a lawyer, I am definitely not YOUR lawyer, yada yada) If I were Elastic, I would require Amazon dot com or anyone else who wants to contribute code to Elastic to sign a CLA. Depending on how the CLA is structured, this could allow Elastic to continue multi licensing?
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    In this scenario, Amazon doesn't want to contribute to Elastic, Elastic wants Amazon's changes from Amazon's fork (Opensearch). So they can't demand Amazon sign a CLA, because they can't offer Amazon anything for it. Amazon is fine just ... not signing and continuing on their open fork. Elastic have lost the Schelling monopoly on what constitutes the "mainline".
    - Xylakant 2y ago
      But Elastic can already take the changes from Amazons fork - opensearch is permissively licensed. What they might want is that Amazon stops maintaining its fork and contributes directly to elastics mainline. I believe that ship has sailed, and it's not coming back to pick up stragglers.
NewJazz 2y ago
Is that important, though? Isn't the whole point that amazon doesn't care about source availability or openness, so long as they can extract profit from people running it?

quyse 2y ago

I don't think that's their intention. Elastic wouldn't be able to integrate Amazon's patches back into their codebase without losing the ability to change the license in the future. Even more, since it's AGPL, they'd have to get rid of their other licenses immediately.

pooper 2y ago
> Elastic wouldn't be able to integrate Amazon's patches back into their codebase without losing the ability to change the license in the future. (I anal, even if I were a lawyer, I am definitely not YOUR lawyer, yada yada) If I were Elastic, I would require Amazon dot com or anyone else who wants to contribute code to Elastic to sign a CLA. Depending on how the CLA is structured, this could allow Elastic to continue multi licensing?
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  In this scenario, Amazon doesn't want to contribute to Elastic, Elastic wants Amazon's changes from Amazon's fork (Opensearch). So they can't demand Amazon sign a CLA, because they can't offer Amazon anything for it. Amazon is fine just ... not signing and continuing on their open fork. Elastic have lost the Schelling monopoly on what constitutes the "mainline".
  - Xylakant 2y ago
    But Elastic can already take the changes from Amazons fork - opensearch is permissively licensed. What they might want is that Amazon stops maintaining its fork and contributes directly to elastics mainline. I believe that ship has sailed, and it's not coming back to pick up stragglers.

NewJazz 2y ago

Is that important, though? Isn't the whole point that amazon doesn't care about source availability or openness, so long as they can extract profit from people running it?