Comment by manigandham
4 years ago
Quite a few companies have proprietary products but have learned to make money selling services. One of them even has a 200B market cap and is called Oracle.
Nobody needs to feel sorry for anyone.
4 years ago
Quite a few companies have proprietary products but have learned to make money selling services. One of them even has a 200B market cap and is called Oracle.
Nobody needs to feel sorry for anyone.
Right. But the question here is not about companies value in the market. Why changing the subject? This should be about the ethics behind Amazon's aggressive actions against OSS and its effect on the OSS industry.
The value in the market is the subject of the parent thread. Anyways, like I said, Elastic could've made money with a proprietary product but they chose OSS instead (and used Apache Lucene to build on).
AWS is just offering customers what they want and there are many other companies doing the same thing (IBM's Compose, Aiven, Instaclustr, etc). How is this against OSS? This is the OSS industry operating as intended.
Mentioning lucene raises an interesting question... what if lucene adopted the SSPL license that Elastic is for their own product... could Elastic's own business model actually survive that?
5 replies →
Your comment is interpreting as ES was naive by choosing open-source which allows AWS to fork the code. I read this argument all the time about OSS. Where does this conversation lead? I'll tell you: to end any meaningful attempt to create open-source code with a business model aka the end of OSS.
3 replies →
> The value in the market is the subject of the parent thread.
As I said, it's a tactic to change the subject. Instead of focusing on actions with bad faith, change the subject by saying they have a lot of money so Amazon is allowed to be competitive and fork the code.
> AWS is just offering customers what they want.
No. it's not AWS improving some services. It's about a multi-billion dollar company launching a campaign against OSS. They did it with MongoDB and it continues. Some see these actions as justifiable. Because OSS should be MIT and maintainers should live with donations. Others, however, disagree. It can be OSS and profitable (without Amazon actions).
9 replies →