<story><title>Elasticsearch is dead, long live Open Distro for Elasticsearch</title><url>https://www.logicalclocks.com/blog/elasticsearch-is-dead-long-live-open-distro-for-elasticsearch</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jchw</author><text>My PoV: a bunch of startups chose to do open source because it’s good PR and marketing. Then it proved to be bad for their business model so they moved to something much closer to shared source.&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don’t think there’s anything immoral or shameful about selling proprietary software or shared source or whatever. However, SSPL and TSL and friends are just not open source licenses. They’re more restrictive than AGPL. They are designed to protect a business model, not your rights as an end user.&lt;p&gt;So it irks me that the only perspective I see reliably is that Amazon is screwing everyone and not how startups are willing to take advantage of the good will and marketing bonus and then switch it up when they realize it can’t be reconciled with their business model. Continuing to call it “open source” is just insult to injury, imo.</text></item><item><author>mrkurt</author><text>Rephrased: Amazon played hardball with open source Elasticsearch, limiting elastic&amp;#x27;s ability to make money and forcing a license change. Now you should use Amazon&amp;#x27;s fork instead!&lt;p&gt;This is not a good outcome for people who want an independent OSS ecosystem.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mrkurt</author><text>&amp;quot;Bad for their business model&amp;quot; because Amazon has tremendous power. It wasn&amp;#x27;t just a series of bad choices by the startups that got them here, it was concentration of an emerging market over 10-15 years.&lt;p&gt;Amazon dominates conversations because they extract the most value from open source projects. They make more money selling PostgreSQL, MySQL, Elasticsearch, _Docker_, Linux, etc than the creators of those projects. It&amp;#x27;s not the only perspective, but it dominates for a reason.&lt;p&gt;Startups OSS their work because it helps them get users and figure out what to build. Amazon has the benefit of watching which projects become most viable (frequently because the startup threatens their revenue somehow) and packaging them up as their own services.&lt;p&gt;I want to live in a world where smaller startups _can_ OSS their work and also monetize it. And I&amp;#x27;d like them to be able to do it without raising $100mm in VC.</text></comment>
<story><title>Elasticsearch is dead, long live Open Distro for Elasticsearch</title><url>https://www.logicalclocks.com/blog/elasticsearch-is-dead-long-live-open-distro-for-elasticsearch</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jchw</author><text>My PoV: a bunch of startups chose to do open source because it’s good PR and marketing. Then it proved to be bad for their business model so they moved to something much closer to shared source.&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don’t think there’s anything immoral or shameful about selling proprietary software or shared source or whatever. However, SSPL and TSL and friends are just not open source licenses. They’re more restrictive than AGPL. They are designed to protect a business model, not your rights as an end user.&lt;p&gt;So it irks me that the only perspective I see reliably is that Amazon is screwing everyone and not how startups are willing to take advantage of the good will and marketing bonus and then switch it up when they realize it can’t be reconciled with their business model. Continuing to call it “open source” is just insult to injury, imo.</text></item><item><author>mrkurt</author><text>Rephrased: Amazon played hardball with open source Elasticsearch, limiting elastic&amp;#x27;s ability to make money and forcing a license change. Now you should use Amazon&amp;#x27;s fork instead!&lt;p&gt;This is not a good outcome for people who want an independent OSS ecosystem.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>majormajor</author><text>I think you&amp;#x27;re painting it as more cynical and malicious than it was. There was probably too much naivety, but &amp;quot;open source your software and charge for support and operations&amp;quot; was promoted pretty heavily for a while &lt;i&gt;not just by these companies, but by people who wanted to enjoy those projects being open source&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;And then it got torpedoed...</text></comment>