[sagichmal]

Why shouldn't you pay to use it, then?

More generally: why should AWS get to leverage its near-monopolistic position in the SaaS market to perform essentially hostile takeovers of the software projects it packages and runs? Simply because they have the resources to do it?

[e1ven]

I'm very glad that they've done this.

The code was open, and the company decided to close it for the new versions, so it forks. Forks are common when people don't like the corporate direction of an OSS project - It's a strength, not a weakness. Openoffice/Libreoffice, Hudson/Jenkins etc.

Imagine if Linus said that the next version of Linux would be paid-only.

Within 15 minutes there'd be a new librelinux repo that people could contribute to instead.

Someone was going to make a new fork anyway - This is Amazon putting their money where their mouth is to fund and support that new fork.

[dhd415]

To be clear, no Elasticsearch code or features that were OSS were closed. As new Elasticsearch features are developed, some of them are now released as OSS and others are released with a commercial license.

[anth_anm]

Okay, are you glad that Amazon now owns Elasticsearch?

[therealx]

If ES didn't do the weird license change thing, we wouldn't be here. Either Amazon wouldn't have used it, or they'd be paying. Including non-com features in the default install was not a good way to play things.

Would you feel the same if AWS built a drop in/api compatible system from scratch?