Here’s the initial AWS response to the license change that they made in 2018, which I helped write. At the time we didn’t think a new license made sense, as AGPL is sufficient to block AWS from using the code, but the core of the issue was that AWS wanted to contribute security features to the open source project and Elastic wanted to keep security as an enterprise feature, so rejected all the approaches AWS made at the time. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-...
Out of curiosity, did you pursue a rev share model with Elastic (Co) for your Elastic managed service? I guess that's not something thay can be discussed openly but recognizing you probably had 10x their revenue in the managed service and another 10x their revenue in compute behind the OSS, I wonder if there could have been a proactive happy middle ground found years ago.
I suppose that they might not have accepted something that was too small percent wise and hence might have preferred to go head to head no matter where that might have gone.
My real sense for why they've struggled to out maneuver is their lack of execution on their managed service (9 years in market, still minority of their revenue); while you had a head start and I'm sure that's what they point to as preventing execution, if they had really focused there they might be more like Confluent in terms of being considered the well regarded SaaS leader in their segment.
But I do think it'd be a good look for AWS to proactively help these companies. I didn't think the approach taken with Grafana Labs was right... that looked more like a Faustian bargain to an outside observer (e.g. we'll cut you down at your knees and directly compete but offer you their more expensive version on our paper. It looked incredibly humiliating).
From previous threads, my understanding is Elastic is a pretty arduous enterprise sales process which turned a lot of small/mid customers away.
High vendor management overhead is a huge pain for smaller companies that don't have robust IT to manage those relationships.
The smaller/mid size startups I've worked at almost never acquire "enterprise" software and always leverage pay-by-credit-card type SaaS
Besides operational overhead there's also a much longer acquisition time (no one wants to spend 3-6 months working with a sales team to sign a contract on a project with 2-3 month timeline)
About this topic I'm going to say that at my company we had to choose a managed solution for logs, and there were several contenders. I strongly wanted to use the service offered by Elastic, the company, as we were already managing a lot of biggish clusters and we thought that going with the company behind it would be the best thing to do.
But they made it very difficult to try it out at scale (we generate quite a lot of logs) and at one point they only wanted to talk to the CTO instead of the persons in charge of the PoCs.
That move made them untrustable to me, and they were disqualified from the process. If they wanted to compete on selling the solution to non-technical people that told us all we needed to know about them and how support would be.
We ended up choosing managed Opensearch by AWS, which was a shitshow in several fronts. I wish we had given Loki a bigger chance at that time. We've ended up migrating to it anyway.
Totally and that goes back to their lack of execution as a managed service/SaaS offering because the GTM for those is different, more self-service. If you can't unwind yourself from selling a heavy weight legacy style enterprise software package, you struggle to execute in SaaS, you burden yourself to be understood by your customer as the opposite of modern.
Why? Does Amazon rev share with Red Hat? Does Google rev share with Linux? Or is it the other way around, should perhaps Linux instead pay Android for putting their product in front of billions of eyeballs? I'm sure there's a way of monetizing a billion users even for a kernel.
The answer is no, because Linux is open source. It is a multi stakeholder model where no single actor is allowed to control other actors use of the product. There is ownership, but it is separated from control. This is implemented with the GPL, but the license is only a tool to achieve the outcome, a multi stakeholder product.
This is why Amazon, Red Hat and Google all can justify to employ hundreds of engineers all contributing to a common product. Amazon can work on security functionality with no risk that Red Hat will veto it because it threatens its revenue stream. And while none of the top kernel developers have made billions from their important work, they still earn well, and all the mentioned companies have grown to become billion dollar companies.
Everyone knew this in the 90s, that's why we have the philosophy around open source. Now the discourse has changed. It is suddenly immoral to earn money from someone else's product, because if you start a project then you own it outright. Not only that, but you also have a right to become rich from your work. Discussions how immoral it is for a large company to use a piece of software without paying the original author is a completely normal thing to do, never mind that they would have no problem reinventing that particular wheel in a heartbeat.
Companies like Elastic have latched on to this, and call their product open source, but call foul when other people build products and make a living from their software. They're not actually interested in a multi stakeholder model at all.
How big would Wordpress have been without every cloud actor out there offering to host instances for a cheap fee?
This is why Amazon, Red Hat and Google all can justify to employ hundreds of engineers all contributing to a common product. Amazon can work on security functionality with no risk that Red Hat will veto it because it threatens its revenue stream. And while none of the top kernel developers have made billions from their important work, they still earn well, and all the mentioned companies have grown to become billion dollar companies.
This can't be stressed enough. OSS does monetarily work for the developers too. FAANGs love paying top dollar for OSS maintainers.
There were several proposals made to Elastic at the time, but their attitude was that they controlled the project and didn’t want AWS to make big contributions to the open source distribution that would reduce their differentiation. They were also mixing licenses in the code base and deliberately making it hard for AWS to use.
I was also assisting in the deal with Grafana, which I thought was a good deal on both sides, setting up a framework for AWS and Grafana to work together over a longer timeframe. Ash Manzani who negotiated the deal for AWS later joined Grafana to run Corp Dev for them.
AWS tends to optimize for whatever its customers want, rather than what its partner ecosystem wants. However we did spend some time trying to help open source partners figure out how best to work with AWS and to leverage the marketplace etc. to be successful by leveraging the platform rather than fighting with it. Mongo is a good example of how that can work.
Unfortunately many companies charge extra for security where security should be the default. Truth to be told there some some situations where extra security costs could be justified but there are not many if charge is necessary it should be considered as a temporary measure. My $0.02.
I'm not sure what you mean by "security" in this context.
Identity management, role based access control, useful audit logs; all "enterprise" features, probably are very expensive to implement, and make for obvious "up-charge" product segmentation.
I suspect there's some combination of "the community doesn't add useful implementations of these features" and "we can't possibly risk our reputation based on some community contribution" and "we can use this to segment our product to sell to some and give it away to some."
This set of features seems to always get put in the "enterprise, only for licensed / supported customers" and it stinks.... I can understand why, though, and none of these are strictly speaking "security" as much as "compliance"
Using your yardstick, we wouldn’t have any open source software, everything costs time to implement, that’s the point of open source, we donate time to the collective community. All those security features are not enterprise specific, they are rudimentary for any modern open source product
I'm saying that companies that opensource their products tend to distinguish "enterprise" and non-enterprise based on things like RBAC and audit mechanisms, neither of which is "security" as much as "compliance".
The original license owner, if a commercial enterprise trying to sell the product alongside the "open" version, has less incentive to accept those features from the community as it would reduce their sales of the enterprise version of the same thing, and may not align with their long-term product roadmap.
In open source, the team managing a codebase isn't under any obligation to accept contributions the community and you are welcome to fork the project, if you like.
RBAC is absolutely a practical security control, even for non-commercial users. Least necessary privilege is not a checkbox, it will 100% save your butt in a breach by limiting blast radius.
Let's say you work at a company that uses Elasticsearch. Let's say you're running a newspaper and you've got your logs in elasticsearch. Let's say one of your reporters ends up getting chopped up while they're visiting the Ostrich embassy to get a marriage license. Now let's say you're then asked "who looked at the logs of the CMS who searched for and found the IP address that was used by that reporter on October 1st 2018"
That example, purely hypothetical, is an example of "security" but not the typical security you'll see in some open source application -- it's an enterprise "compliance" feature that won't be trivial to implement and will be judged not just on completeness but on user interface, ease of use, ease of implementation, etc.
"security" means different things to different people
I think it's fair to say most security is built-in by your average developer. However, the security side of things needs efforts from a far smaller pool of experts that can make your tool as secure as is possible. I don't imagine it is as cheap to find feature developers as well as security experts or security developers. Practically speaking, cheaping out on security might cost you the reputation of the app, so doing it well will be expensive but worth it, but might never be worth it if you offer everything by default but in the end only a fraction of your customer base uses the features.
We got a SOC2 cert in our bootstrapped small saas company. Then we hid the report behind Enterprise subscriptions because it takes too much time, effort and money to obtain and maintain it.
We did not get certified because we wanted it, we did because the enterprise scale customers forced us to. Due to their internal bureaucracy.
I have the same problem at the moment with Supabase. We're a startup trying to get ISO 27001 certified and need to upload Supabase's SOC2 report to Vanta, but we can't because we're on the Pro tier and they don't give access to that, even after emailing them. It's ridiculous.
It is even more ridiculous because it costs them nothing to issue an extra copy of this pdf report. They need to certify anyway because their enterprise customers will demand it.
(I work at/started Vanta. Email support@vanta.com and they should be able to give you guidance and help out. If that doesn't work, email me -- christina at vanta)
In fact I like the change. This allows them to make almost everything free of charge to individual/small companies, but could fund it from revenue of larger organization, who generally don't have problem paying.
I don't mind them requiring a paid tier to get the detailed compliance level reports, but requiring the most uber expensive "call us" plan is probably too much for many smaller companies that might still benefit from easier SOC2 complaince.
And what of small companies that need things like SOC2 reports from vendors?
If you want to work with large companies, being SOC certified makes it easier. Part of that is ensuring your vendors are also compliant with good standards and that's best done with SOC reports.
Getting SOC 2 compliance alone takes ~10k USD apart from vendor reports. Yes they may be small with employee count, but when I said small I just meant someone running something for small set of users for free or close to free. Not someone working with other enterprises.
My point is that even small companies may need SOC reports from their vendors but still not be able to financially support enterprise level plans with every one of them. By being supportive of hiding those reports behind enterprise level contracts you are effectively supporting pricing those companies out and potentially making them unable to work with larger clients.
SOC reports are only needed for SOC compliance and compliance costs 10k USD. It depends on the subscription cost, but if the company could afford the compliance they could afford extra 100 USD/month. No one expects small companies to pay few 1000 dollars per month.
Although few companies have minimum ticket size for enterprise clients and that is a bad thing IMO.
Or worse, "SSO" as an Enterprise feature. You're a 2-3 person startup, you set up GSuite, you want to set things up right, oh, "$Call us" for a tier with SSO. Nope, I guess disparate users for now. Not the worst in the world to be clear, but an entirely arbitrary gate, in my experience.
I have long held that view also, although the post below about the cost of supporting SSO was interesting. Unlike withholding SOC2 reports which cost nothing to incremental to give to your lowest tier, SSO may increase the cost of support. I wonder how it would go offering SSO as an addon to entry level tiers that covers the incremental support cost.
Software should be secure by default. No defense of honor is necessary.
> This line of thinking has lead to many foreign wars of choice, where we send young men to die and our nation recieved nothing in exchange. "It was the right thing to do" is uttered by those who did nothing
I am not able to find any references to the war of regression or the battle of cve-2021-44228, so I'll have to call nonsense on this one.
Security should be free (or rather, things should not be released if they aren’t reasonably secure) for a couple reasons.
We’re all on the same internet, people getting taken over and used as ddos nodes, leveraged for further attacks, or leaking PII is a pain for everybody.
Skimping on security is always easier, and security is hard to detect for the end user. We shouldn’t have a race to the bottom on this stuff.
For volunteer projects, like a lot of open source, we can’t really make demands. But I think it is still unethical to release an open source project that invites itself to used in an insecure manner. It is like an “attractive nuisance” (typical example: In some jurisdictions, you might be responsible for an un-fenced pool on your property if a kid falls in it, even if getting to it required trespassing, because we don’t want a society where uninformed people die avoidably). Without a customer service relationship, open source developers don’t have an obligation to make something useful, but nobody should put harmful things out into the world.
People don't want to get hurt, physically, emotionally, financially.
> Not just in software but in general?
People being harmed is very expensive.
> you need to pay tribute to those who can
This is a very primordial view of things. Security and safety are literally the underpinning of modern, western society. The cost of that security is baked into prices for services and products, taxes and law.
Then don't use it? It's non-functional right? I don't get where the complaints come in.
Side note: Security in these discussions is often something more like "It works with my single sign on system" or "It lets me check this box on my audit form". Security doesn't only have to happen at the app layer and it's completely doable to isolate any software in a way that is is secure despite itself. So it's less security and more convenient security that is being demanded for free most often by people who offer nothing for free themselves. The entitlement is really extreme.
> Security doesn't only have to happen at the app layer
Agreed and once an application has differentiation between a “super user” and users of fewer privileges, it needs an application security model. Additionally once there are differences in which data a user may access, it needs a data security model.
Not only do I demand secure software by default, but I actively work to terminate relationships with companies who feel how you do. They can have whatever ideals they'd like, just none of the money I steward.
In that case it isn’t really security at all, right? Integrating with some SSO system is fine to charge a premium for, as long as the default form of authentication is reasonably secure.
"as AGPL is sufficient to block AWS from using the code"
I have taken this position in another thread a while ago, but the responses seemed to indicate that this is not a clearly cut situation at all. If it was, what is the point of the "source-available" licenses in the first place? I mean, the idea that they were invented to cut out AWS is pretty prevalent, no?
Well, the comment from OP isn't necessarily complete. The AGPL is not about preventing someone from using source code (indeed that would be contrary to the spirit of all liberal and copyleft licenses), but rather the condition under which source code modifications need to be made available.
Specifically, if you offer the software for "Remote Network Interaction" (AGPLv3 section 13), well, "if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version".
I think the original challenge with AGPLv3 vs (to grossly generalize) the VC-backed open source corporate ecosystem was not around source code, but around monetization as SaaS by the hyperscalers. The problem there is even if the hyperscalers publish source code modifications (which they probably have no problem with) they have such sales efficiency and gravitational pull that they will end up eating your business.
AWS at the time had AGPL on its list of licenses that couldn’t be used. There were other clouds in China especially ignoring the AGPL provisions and I think SSPL was used to try and be more explicit.
There's enough legal uncertainty about API calls being considered linking that it keeps coming up. Minio are probably at the forefront of claiming this somewhat implicitly while referring you to your lawyer (or their pricing page, preferably) when asked about how they understand the AGPL.
FSF/GNU have an example of an AGPL proxy becoming compliant by serving it a page with the offer to download source code on the first request, pretty far off from reality if you ask me. That's also the big other issue, AGPL is unclear about conveyance over a network. Does a header work? Does a link to the source repo work or do you need to offer hard copies? What do you do if the "networking" is a highly specific protocol that simply can't make that offer over the wire?
Nah, the AGPL is pretty clear (and way clearer than the GPL and LGPL due to combined/derived work fuzziness). The issue with it isn't anything to do with the mechanism of the license itself, because it is pretty clear what the criteria are (and offering an API over the network definitively constitutes Remote Network Interaction) and how you can fulfill the source distribution. The real issue is that the AGPLv3 doesn't preclude a third party from commercializing the software (whether modified or not).
The problem with Minio is how many layers of indirection "interacting with an API" consitutes. If I write a webapp that uses Minio in the background, Minio has stated that their belief is that your webapp is subject to the viral part of the AGPL.
That's interesting. I was reading their licensing compliance FAQ at https://min.io/compliance and it doesn't allude to that; in fact it suggests that for instance calling a REST API doesn't imply derived work (modulo the specificity piece), referencing the GPL. The omission of the over-the-network AGPL provision is notable. I wonder if it's obscure on purpose?
MinIO has taken (and still is taking) contributions without CLA, so they likely don't even have the ability to sell license exceptions.
They seem to have at least fixed their compliance page. It used to read:
"If you are an Original Equipment Manufacturers, a Reseller, or an Independent Software Vendor that combines and distributes commercially licensed software with MinIO software and do not wish to distribute the source code for the commercially licensed software under GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3.0 (AGPLv3), you must enter into a commercial license agreement with MinIO, available at https://min.io/pricing."
I don't know if this was part of the issues but adding authentication to Elastic APIs and Kibana is so confusing and complicated that it is almost impossible to do unless you go for a managed solution. I'm sure that one factor alone motivates a lot of users to buy the service instead of hosting their own using the available source.
Yeah, this is an underrated aspect of all the managed hosting options out there. If vendors made it easy to deploy their code, folks would be far more willing to run it themselves. But just rolling out a simple production-ready cluster of most software is a nightmare of complexity. (Note that while open-source software is often not great at this, proprietary software is often just as bad or worse. This is not a side-effect of open-source. It's a failure of prioritization of the operator experience.)
But why couldn't you or AWS donate/pay to Elastic for what they created to get those features in? I understand the security features you mentioned is very necessary, but Elastic will lose revenue because of this, and they are not a trillion dollars cap tech giant like AWS to support the project for free.
