blockcipher

9 ms·

391.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
I totally agree, I think this is great for the community because the writing was on the wall ever since the initial X-pack source-available drama as well as the original OpenDistro drama. I think this will be better for all involved.
392.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
I don’t, I work for a non-profit that refuses to run proprietary software such as Elasticsearch 7.1.1 in prod. Not sure why you made that blind assumption. Very bizarre.
393.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
Amazon is literally under no obligation to contribute any code back. Yet they do because most people prefer to merge upstream if they can, and Amazon is no exception. Frankly Elastic has been very hostile at accepting PRs if they seem like
394.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
Actually, your argument that there’s any relevance to Elastic being the primary developer lacks insight. It changes nothing about the licensing situation nor about the ethics. You’re also not factoring in the fact that the nonrestrictive li
395.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
Great comment. Just to add a bit more nuance, I think we tend to focus a lot on community contributions, but IMO the biggest benefit of FOSS is not that; it's adoption. Even if Elastic writes 100% of the code, by making it open source,
396.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> And that "free software" licences especially the viral ones exemplified by GPL/AGPL are also still relevant in 2021, and having chosen one of those would have given Elastic.co what they claim to be demanding... (I think
397.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
The reason I'm happy with Capitalism is because Elastic backstabbed the community and in a manner of weeks we'll have community-driven Apache 2.0 forks. So I think the market is responding as it should and am happy to see it. >
398.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
There's nothing unethical about "capturing more value than you deliver" (well, assuming I understand you right; I'm interpreting that to mean side A gets say +10EV and side B gets +100EV). In free trade, both sides benef
399.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
Just curious, have you ever operated Elasticsearch at scale? I haven't operated at the petabyte level but I have at the terabyte level, and everything I've seen tells me that this move is going to hurt Elastic immensely. They&#x27
400.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
I've made very small contributions, irrelevant in the scheme of things. I've also run decent-sized Elasticsearch clusters (~10-20TB total store). When I speak of betrayal I'm more speaking in the general sense that under my v
401.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
So, let's pretend I'm Amazon and I'm offering a SAAS Elasticsearch product. You need someone to manage your Elasticsearch for me, so you pay me. Internally, I'm running vanilla, unmodified Elasticsearch, which talks to a
402.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> It seems like it made good business sense for Elastic to switch licenses It actually makes incredibly bad business sense for Elastic to switch licenses, because they won't get any more revenue as a result and have now forced a hig
403.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
Yeah, I simplified things for the sake of argument, but just to be clear, the whole open core business model was a huge conflict of interest and has convinced me that open core is a way worse conflict of interest than other ways to monetize
404.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
It's literally the obvious move that anyone who has been paying attention predicted. I predicted this myself days ago, and trust me it didn't require any genius. Elastic is just fundamentally in the wrong here. (I'm not talki
405.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> but they can make much more money writing software and not giving it away Hey guess what. It's possible to take an Apache 2.0 codebase, let's say Lucene, and then build more Apache 2.0 code on top of it, give it away entirely
406.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> It is absolutely possible that something legal can still be ethically unacceptable. I didn't say that wasn't the case. I specifically made this claim: It is not just legal for Amazon to do this, but it is also ethical. They
407.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> Not being able to reap what you sow is a problem with open source. I don’t doubt we are seeing less great software being shared in the open because of it. If we want more useful software shared as open source we should fix this. The Am
408.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
Fundamentally, these people do not believe in the core principles of capitalism, such as the notion that free trade makes both parties richer and that profit is not an evil but a necessary and healthy phenomenon. Thus because Amazon is a hu
409.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> Elastic is derived from Apache Lucene, it’s unclear if anyone involved in its’ development could legally have made it more restrictive, though they apparently are trying to. Actually, you can totally use Apache 2.0 code as your kernel
410.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
And frankly, I don't even buy the morality argument. It is a moral good to provide value to customers such that they voluntarily choose to give you money in exchange for that value. These people have this bizarre fusion of capitalist a
411.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> AWS is releasing an “actually OSS” fork - totally inline and allowed under permissive OSS - and is somehow unethical? The mind reels. Yup. This mentality drives me absolutely insane. People seem to regurgitate whatever propaganda fake-
412.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> As I understand it the only prohibition of use is to offering the software as a cloud-hosted solution of the software itself. You very profoundly and deeply misunderstand what the SSPL actually says, which is understandable because Ela
413.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
Yeah let's talk about greed for a second. Elastic, at this moment, is pulling in half a billion dollars in revenue per year. They're growing at at least 40% y/y. They're valued at $15B at this very moment. So, tell me ag
414.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> Yet it would've prevented AWS from undercutting their paid offering in the place I'm at now that would rather pay for it than self-host it. Key word here is would've. They were already Apache 2.0 until 7.1.0 therefore th
415.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> Its arguable that Elastic simply hasn’t come up with an open-source compatible business model, and that’s fine. But its not Amazon’s fault. Exactly this. Or more accurately, Elastic is pretending it doesn't have an open-source com
416.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
I'd phrase it backwards: these people think it should have the appearance of open source and get all the benefits (contributions from community, widespread adoption), but legally and ethically speaking it's closed source and they
417.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
Forgive me for expressing my frustrating for a moment here: What is with this new generation of developers (I don't mean new as in young since I meet people in their 40s espousing these ideas), who make all these high-minded arguments
418.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
I absolutely reject the notion that they chose Apache 2.0 "randomly"...indeed it's what Lucene, which they use as their kernel of sorts, is licensed under. You use Apache 2.0 when you explicitly don't want copyleft. But
419.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> It seems reasonable to me at least to say: you can use this software for free, but you can't resell it. If you want professional support, please support someone who is maintaining the software. Well, first of all I disagree that t
420.
by __blockcipher__ 6y ago
> The SSPL allows free and unrestricted use and modification, with the simple requirement that if you provide the product as a service to others, you must also publicly release any modifications as well as the source code of your managem

More ›

__blockcipher__

blockcipher