- cross-posted to:
- libre_culture
- cross-posted to:
- libre_culture
You must log in or register to comment.
I almost didn’t read this, thinking it’s going to be the usual excuses, but this is pretty serious:
When Amazon announced their Open Distro for Elasticsearch fork, they used code that we believe was copied by a third party from our commercial code and provided it as part of the Open Distro project.
Because this is Amazon, I frankly have no sympathy. They’re one of the richest companies in the world and they can’t be bothered to audit the code for open source compliance?
Honestly, I’m not sure, they could’ve necessarily known. If that third party removed any mentions of Elastic’s proprietary license and included an open-source license (or sold it to Amazon under a license that would allow them to open-source it), then you would need a pretty damn good open-source-compliance checker that has Elastic’s proprietary code in its database.
Which is not to say that I consider them completely out of the fold. If some tiny company sells you flawlessly working code for something that Elastic has been basing their livelihood of, you should investigate.
And as I understand it, you get access to Elastic’s proprietary code, if you’ve bought a license, so Amazon could’ve just compared code snippets, if they cared at all about not being horrendously shitty.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I don’t entirely get that either. My best guess is that the license change can be ignored by many, because you don’t really need to comply with the license, if you’re not offering Elasticsearch as a service to others (outside of your own company). And well, Amazon is offering Elasticsearch as a service to others.
But yeah, the blanket statement that nothing changes for apparently anyone but Amazon, that’s still hard to believe.