> A call for a standard open license
If Elastic wants to see this sustainable licensing model adopted as the norm, it's in their interest to rename the license so it's not branded to a single company.
If Elastic wants to see this sustainable licensing model adopted as the norm, it's in their interest to rename the license so it's not branded to a single company.
The other is a publicly traded company known for a single product (suite), and the licencing troubles they have faced when dealing with hyperscalers like AWS providing their product to their customers.
Of course those licenses are generally understood to be open source licenses under the careful definitions and criteria that the free software foundation uses for this. The Elastic license isn't open enough to meet those criteria.
MongoDB and Elastic are likely the biggest companies with licenses of similar goals, but I don't ever see Mongo adopting a commercially branded license, they both need to come together to unify behind a single one to lead the way for others to adopt it.
should the text of the license itself be copyright-able at all?
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 3, 29 June 2007
> Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <https://fsf.org/>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
This is one reason I think SSPL is bit problematic as afaik it's just AGPL with changes, something that is explicitly forbidden.
It is allowed.