← Back to context

Comment by DetroitThrow

4 years ago

Err, SSPL which Elasticsearch is licensed under isn't AGPL - it's a viral, proprietary license - not quite the copyleft we'd want if we wanted a fair playing field between all actors working on it.

18 comments

DetroitThrow

Reply
Macha  4 years ago

If you think this is about Elastic caring about openness and freedom, ask yourself why they don't drop the CLA for a DCO and let themselves be beholden to the same terms

  • j16sdiz  4 years ago

    Counterpoint: FSF and Mozilla require CLA too

    • SXX  4 years ago

      Except that FSF and Mozilla are not usual for-profit companies with primary mission of making as much money as possible. Elastic on other side is and it's funded by VC money that want return on their investment.

ocdtrekkie  4 years ago

It's a viral open source license, it literally requires open sourcing code, there's nothing proprietary about it except that we allow a council of elitist snots to decide what is and isn't Open Source(TM), and they have decided Google and Amazon support is more important than viable businesses which are building open source businesses.

  • busterarm  4 years ago

    The SSPL literally violates Freedom 0.

    > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

    And though we're talking about open source instead of free software, without Freedom 0, the software still might as well be proprietary.

    Edit: It also violates Rules 1, 5, 6 & 9 of the OSD. So no, let's not call it "open source"

    • ocdtrekkie  4 years ago

      This is incorrect, you are free to use the program if you wish, it just also, like the GPL, conveys requirements on open sourcing code you use with it. Open sourcing services without the necessary tools to run it isn't much good, so SSPL ensures the freedom to run your own better than GPL based licenses.

      6 replies →

  • jrochkind1  4 years ago

    Could Elastic's business model work if lucene were licensed SSPL?

    I think it probably could not. And if lucene were licensed GPL, it would not be possible for ElasticSearch to use this new SSPL license, it would be have to be GPL too.

  • DetroitThrow  4 years ago

    The principle of in the GNU manifesto would be that the software is available for anyone to use in the same way, such that Elastic isn't elevated to not disclose their closed source additions to the software.

    At this point, they are directly violating that core principle as well as the uncontroversial OSI directive 6 which copyleftists like myself don't really have a problem with... So I'm not sure what the issue here would be other than you dislike the larger companies' involvement in OSS? I think myself and others would appreciate clarification.