Too late, the community all moved over to OpenSearch.
I'll never forgive Elastic for locking basic security features behind their paid licence. Over the years probably millions of people had their data compromised due to that (due to people inadvertently leaving instances on the public internet - having auth enabled by default would have helped a lot)
What is "the community" here? Every metric I'm able to find (commit frequency, gh stars, gh stars gained since the launch of opensearch, stack overflow tags, google search result counts...) suggests that OpenSearch didn't really take much of Elastic's mind share in the end. Each metric I've looked at shows OpenSearch at somewhere between 20%-50% of Elastic's numbers, which isn't nothing but is a far cry from "the community".
I've heard a few anecdotes suggesting some people took it seriously, but while we're sharing those: my company actually adopted ElasticSearch since the license change and never seriously considered OpenSearch.
If only they had the skills to deploy and maintain it sure. But they don't so they ask services companies/DevOps to do it for them. No need to be AWS to be affected by SSPL
If you're referring to the SSPL (it's unclear), it can be used without obligations when a service uses it as a storage, rather than providing it as a service to the clients. Since the latter case is essentially cloud companies, I'm confused by the business nature of the "hundreds of customers"; if they're not cloud companies, Elasticsearch pre- or post-license change makes no difference.
> SSPL is also preventing DevOps/services companies to deploy for their customers, it's not affecting only cloud providers.
If a "DevOps" company purely provide deployment services, and doesn't offer a managed Redis service, SSPL makes no difference.
It seems that the term "DevOps/services" is a way to refer to companies that offer Redis as managed service, without calling them "cloud providers". This type of service is what a large part of the IT community is againt, and that licenses like AGPL/SSPL try to prevent.
It's the new users where the pain is. A lot of companies that were using Elasticsearch indeed haven't switched because doing so is a bit of work without a lot of advantages. But all my new clients are defaulting to Opensearch. It's not even close.
I think it's pretty sad that Conglomo X can take an open source product, add some tweaks and sell/capture the entire market. Basically taking all the work that open source maintainers have done.
This is literally what open source is. If you don't support this, you don't support open source.
There isn't a 'purer' form of open source which does exactly what you want with respect to big companies using the code.
You can be in favour of licensing that restricts Amazon or Microsoft's right to use your work. But that position is detrimental to, not supportive of, open source, since such a license would not be open source.
I've always been a little sceptical as well of the grassroots (maybe, maybe not) resistance on here against any efforts to stop the big 3 from using their network effects to syphon off the revenue from these projects.
The messaging against elastic style licences and even copyleft licenses is too convenient for me to trust as being 100% genuine.
These handful of companies have employed legions of people at this point and I think plenty pump their own brand, not unlike colleges with their alumni networks.
The main incentive for maintainers of open source software is to see many happy users of this software. Most open source maintainers do not care about monetizing their products (or the monetization has very low priority).
That's why most open source maintainers use truly open-source licenses for their software - BSD, MIT, Apache2, and they will be happy if Amazon, Google or Microsoft builds successful product on top of their open-source software, since this gives them the desired recognition.
Yes, let's praise and reward the hyperscaler and not the small company that is 1% of the size of AWS.
AWS got Elastic's goodies for free. They just came in and gobbled up all of that value for themselves like vultures. Meanwhile the people putting in the work effectively got robbed.
Small companies should stop doing open source and switch to source available + MAU/ARR restriction clauses.
> What on earth? Elastic is a multi-billion dollar company. They are no indie startup, scrappy underdog nor are they victims here.
> AWS took the high road during this fiasco despite Elastic's mudslinging and flailing about.
They didn't start as a multi-billion dollar company. In fact, AWS started shipping their Elasticsearch Service in 2015. Public records show that Elastic's annual revenue in 12 months after their IPO in 2018 was ~200m with <1000 employees.
I'd argue that Elastic is a multi-billion dollar company _in spite_ of AWS.
They shouldn't stop doing open source, they should just make sure they use the correct licence, like AGPL. Businesses will always take as much as they can and give back as little as they can. The "permissive" licences specifically allow them to give back nothing. Cue shocked Pikachu when they do exactly that.
I'll never forgive Elastic for locking basic security features behind their paid licence. Over the years probably millions of people had their data compromised due to that (due to people inadvertently leaving instances on the public internet - having auth enabled by default would have helped a lot)