Sony forked FreeBSD and used it as a substantial component of their operating system for their PlayStation 5, a product which they will make money off (in the long run, at least). No changes are available to anyone. No one at FreeBSD is jumping up and down about it. Maybe because there's more to a software project than maximising profit.
They or anyone else are also free to relicense their project, there's nothing wrong with it at all and anything under the old license is still what it was before.
It seems kinda strange to demand that someone operate under some license in perpetuity, there is no such rule. Licensing questions don't stop after the inception of a project.
I also personally can’t stand Elastic, because they charge enterprise rates for support, and then offer open source level support. You’ll come across a show stopping issue, and the support you’ll get is most commonly “why are even trying to do this?”, or “please refer to this issue that’s been stale since 2016”.
A nice anecdote I heard a long time ago was comparing the approach to custom engineering between SuSE and Red Hat.
SuSE was always very happy to do custom engineering for paying customers and developed and shipped these features in their Linux Distribution. Specifically I am thinking of some interesting features done in the Kernel. At that point, SuSE received money for the engineering work but now had the burden of supporting their fork. The functionality code itself was not a problem, but the interfaces to the remaining kernel were a source of churn and pain.
Red Hat did the opposite. They told their customers that they can have whatever is in the upstream Kernel and they will help them upstream the necessary changes. That took markedly longer but the long term maintenance was much less effort because the in-tree code would be updated whenever an API/interface changed.
Canonical also had a tendency to happily fork of whatever project they needed to ship a fancy thing on time (think Netbook UI, think Unity etc.) and then get hit by the long term maintenance burden once upstream diverged.
Both SuSE and Canonical always found themselves in the unenviable position of having to constantly update their code and potentially seeing a competing but conflicting solution being merged upstream.
Carrying a few bugfixes or feature improvements in a local branch of a library is easy at first. But you're essentially creating technical debt which you'll need to pay off on every upstream change, every security fix etc. Most companies see value in developing features for their main application, not in maintaining internal forks of open source libraries.
Publicise your work as open source and make hay with the work of open source contributors who thought they were contributing to a truly free and open source project only to find out a couple of years later that their contributions are now locked into a project that locked itself up with a changed license... (I know that their contributions may stay with the license it originally was, but if the total product changes license, who is going to continue an unmaintained fork? )
IMO, it is fair criticism when someone starts off with a liberal license and then changes it when it is time to monetise, or someone else figures out how to monetise it better than the creators. Either be okay with it or not, you can't have it both ways.
What would you have them do? Would only their demise appease you?
I disagree. I think it was hard to know that many years ago (10+?) how things would turn out.
Especially not "entirely foreseeable."
There's a cognitive bias called "hindsight biasy", namely "the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they actually were", https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
I agree with you about AGPL.
The GPL exists because of the problem of other people taking your code and hiding it in their products, placing you at a disadvantage.
The AGPL exists to extend that protection regarding SAAS.
According to Wikipedia, the AGPL is from 2007, and Elasticsearch started 4 years later.
I disagree that you need hindsight not to be surprised by how Elasticsearch was used by e.g. Amazon.
The "sharing" bit is on top, and only comes out if you distribute your changes too. AGPL fixes the flaw where "users" don't really get a copy of the software they are using distributed to them in full (eg. only part of it with JS in the browser, but backend stuff is hidden).
So the focus point of GPL is use of the software (thus users), not writing of it (developers). Developers embrace it because they are simultaneously users of the software written by others, and they are best positioned to make the most out of those liberties ("standing on the shoulders of giants").
In case of success, which Elastic has certainly achieved with ElasticSearch, it is fully expected that other companies will jump in on the bandwagon and try to profit off of it too! And as a company, you hope for success, or rather, that to play out, but just that you'd be the go-to for earning the most off the product you created. While not foreseeable, it is not unexpected that you might not be the one to profit most from your product, and you should plan to profit enough! Where it gets complicated is that nobody expects to earn orders of magnitude less from a product they created than others relying on it.
What they did not foresee was that one of those companies would be The Cloud Provider, thus minimizing their value proposition since Amazon can throw significant resources at it, possibly even greater than Elastic themselves. One could argue that Amazon abused their monopolistic position in cloud providing to offer a bundled ElasticSearch experience that Elastic could never compete with. Even if they developed an alternative in-house product, it looks exactly the same as Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows back in the day.
Even today, if you are willing to develop an open source or free software product, if you get successful enough, you are likely to be an exploitation target of a megacorp. Companies always have an option to relicense in-house written code, and any code submitted by signatories of an appropriate contributor license agreement (CLA).
Basically, I agree it wasn't nice of Amazon, and that it wasn't foreseeable, but it ultimately wasn't unexpected either. To me, this is monopolistic behaviour that should be treated as such.
This also raises another interesting question: if AGPL is an appropriate solution, why did Elastic not relicense under it today? (I am sure they answered this very question when they published their original license, so it's mostly rethorical)
And this is where the problem basically is. The core philosophy of open source licensing is that the creators who use it don't particularly care beyond compliance with the terms of the licenses (eg. Source distribution for copy left licenses)
If it turns out you *do* in fact care, then Open Source licenses are not a good fit for you. If you still go ahead release under Open Source and then change later, don't be surprised to be called out for bait and switch manipulation.
The long-term commercial advantage in Free Software being for the largest established players with revenue mechanisms centered around services rather than selling software licenses was widely recognized, with many observers independently coming to the conclusion, from at least the mid-1990s.
The homebrew maintainer couldn’t even get hired at Google [2] if I recall, even though they’re big fans of using the tooling internally!
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-... (OpenSSL Software Foundation President Steve Marquess wrote in a blog post last week that OpenSSL typically receives about $2,000 in donations a year and has just one employee who works full time on the open source code.)
[2] https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 (Google: 90% of our engineers use the software you wrote (Homebrew), but you can’t invert a binary tree on a whiteboard so fuck off.)
Nobody is owed a sustainable ecosystem to profit off of open source. When things align to be mutually beneficial, that’s great. But by the nature of it, if you want to make money off of software, you should not release it as open source. It’s probably going to eventually wind up being a conflict of interest, wherein the “open” parts of a project eventually become less and less relevant in favor of closed parts.
Open source doesn’t and shouldn’t guarantee a sustainable business model. The best you can hope for is that parties collaborate because they can benefit mutually from this collaboration, like with the Linux kernel.
Your problem transcends one whiner on Twitter; private entities can monopolize public agency across contexts and not be held accountable at all.
Here you are in a VC echo chamber; good luck
That is because xBSD have more than enough people to develop on it - hobbyists and companies alike.
For smaller software with less of an established ecosystem, the supply of people willing to work on it for free is... not exactly much.
