What should we have done instead, that Elastic would have agreed to? We have customers to support"
And this is where the spot he is in gets tighter. Because now the aws business model threats anybody using X as Amazon's user that should be monetized.
So I don't see Amazon backing off profits, and I don't see the OSS community getting any less pissed off from not seeing a piece of the cake.
This story (Mongo, elastic co, etc) seems far from being over.
A good example is RedHat. There is basically no money in simply selling operating system licenses anymore, but someone has to keep developing it. Amazon makes lots of money off of EC2 instances. They could easily throw a few million a year into paying kernel developers. But will they?
Are they just going to be a free rider, while keeping anyone else from being able to make any money too?
Elasticsearch is built on top of Lucene. When Elastic received triple digit millions in VC funding, did they pay the Lucene developers? They're not even Apache Foundation sponsors, as best as I can tell.
>Amazon makes lots of money off of EC2 instances. They could easily throw a few million a year into paying kernel developers. But will they?
Amazon contributes back to the Linux kernel. How much contribution is needed to make it "right"? How do we determine it? Does Amazon need to employ them directly, or sponsor projects? What about their Platinum sponsorship of the Apache Foundation?
Source: I work at Elastic.
That's definitely not new; that has been observed as a natural consequence of Free Softw
are licensing since at least 1990-ish. And I only say that as the latest possible date because it's when I first got internet access and saw discussion of it.