[mola]

Yes, anti trust rules should have stopped amazon. But they didn't, this directly hurts open source.

I don't think elastic would've tried the license change because of competition using the open source.

The problem is Amazon, not elastic that's trying to survive.

[chuckadams]

> Yes, anti trust rules should have stopped amazon

Which ones, specifically?

[motorest]

> Yes, anti trust rules should have stopped amazon. But they didn't, this directly hurts open source.

What absurd, twisted logic. No, it does not affect open source. What are you talking about?

> The problem is Amazon, not elastic that's trying to survive.

No, the problem is Elastic trying to coerce end-users to pay them for using FLOSS projects. It makes absolutely no difference if AWS provides a managed service or if I run Elasticsearch in a AWS EC2 instance I pay for.

[matt-p]

So how should the maintainers eat? Or there should be none? Should they be Amazon employees?

[motorest]

> So how should the maintainers eat?

If a corporation wants to build a business model around FLOSS, it's their responsibility to figure out how to do that. What they cannot do is abuse FLOSS licenses to pull bait-and-switch on their userbase to coerce them to meet their revenue targets.

[zwaps]

They did figure it out. Contributors signed CLA and so their license change was absolutely legal and in line with what everyone agreed upon. When you started using the product, you should have known this.

See what I did there?

[growse]

Personally, as an un-paid OSS maintainer, I chose to go get a job. Other's might choose different paths.

[geodel]

They can create business with closed source software. No one demanded of them to create Apache License software.