Negative externalities. The company makes money using a free resource and disincentivises future development.
I'm sure you can see why killing the most popular business model for open source companies is bad for the ecosystem, right?
I do see issues with monopolies pushing inferior products onto users. But that would be a completely different issue, nothing to do with open source.
According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem. Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?
It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.
It is?
- MongoDB went from AGPL to SSPL
- Redis went from BSD to SSPL
- Elasticsearch went from AGPL to SSPL
- CockroachDB went from Apache to BSL
- TimescaleDB went from Apache to Apache + TLS
- Graylog went from GPL to SSPL
> It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.
That's why intellectual property law exist. If I spent years writing a book and you were allowed to copy it and sell it then obviously you're going to "out compete" me by default. You didn't incur any costs in producing the thing you're selling, duh!
But other databases don't need it, and stayed truly open source, because their business model doesn't rely on being the only hosting provider.
> You didn't incur any costs in producing the thing you're selling, duh!
Indeed, you gave it away for free, saying I could sell it... It doesn't take a business genius to know AWS can undercut your hosting services.
It goes to show that most of these companies don't really care about open source. They cared more about making money and open source was a useful facade to get people to contribute for free.
Exactly. You can sell the products of your work all the way you want.
But pretending to share with the world and then push back when the world actually use it under these same open terms is a hypocrisy.
And even that's overstating it because there's no prohibition of any kind. Cloud providers are free to use SSPL licensed software as long as they release all associated platform code.
After all we're sharing, right?
Other databases are already funded by cloud companies, predate the cloud, or they're too niche to bother.
I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license.
> Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?
They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.
Are you sure that's the case with AGPL? Cause they can sue them and enforce the contribution. I doubt that's the case. And those who went with MIT/BSD openly allow distribution without contribution.
Because parasitic antisocial behavior is viewed negatively.
> They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.
Trying to apply market dynamics to selling things you didn't produce (or pay for) is fascinating...
Amazon doesn’t really have a leg to stand on in objection here. Building a platform to re-sell an open source project may end up fracturing that open source community’s user base, that’s a consequence of their own actions.
Open source companies should pick open source licenses that support that business model. They don't. It's short term thinking.