[asim]

Having just seen JBD from AWS mention now working on this project full time my complete assumption is that AWS will offer it as a service and this isn't possible if the licensing goes in the direction of blocking commercialisation. Since the startup that was building this got acquired by New Relic and Peter Fenton serves on that board I assume they're trying to attack this strategically in a different way. If that's not that case then this is otherwise a fairly naive effort or moreso about drive large scale adoption with open monetisation around it by everyone who wants to.

[pranay01]

So, does that mean that AWS and New Relic can both offer a cloud version of Pixie. In that case, won't that be a bad deal for New Relic - since they acquired Pixie?

[asim]

You can basically do anything with an Apache 2.0 licensed project and that's the point of this entire industry revolt. AWS is basically picking up prominent projects and hosting them for profit with little to no interaction with the entity that created it. Years of R&D and capital go into building these things from the ground up. For AWS at their scale to just lift it and contribute nothing back is a slap in the face. So yes with Pixie, similar possibilities, but New Relic is not stupid. They know this and are likely working directly with AWS on some sort of deal. I know Microsoft has done a better job in this avenue especially with the likes of Hashicorp. AWS actually has no choice but to do better given their lawsuit with Elastic.

[pranay01]

I see. Can you shed more light on lawsuit between AWS & Elastic? I thought from a legal angle - AWS is completely fine to lift Elastic code and offer it as a service. What's the ground for a lawsuit here?