> And about the ElasticSearch, they should have just used a different license.
Hindsight and all that. Not saying I fully agree with Elastic's approach, especially the license uncertainly it creates as noted elsewhere in the thread. But Amazon seems to have gone beyond "hey, this open source, nothing to stop us offering it" here. From The CTO's suggestion Elastic was a partner, to questionable trademark infringement, to potential copying of closed source code. If you read the article, it's notable that Elasticsearch continue to have working relationships with Azure and Google among others.
So there's more to this than just "should've used a different license".
That's a strong claim - evidence?
> And about the ElasticSearch, they should have just used a different license.
Hindsight and all that. Not saying I fully agree with Elastic's approach, especially the license uncertainly it creates as noted elsewhere in the thread. But Amazon seems to have gone beyond "hey, this open source, nothing to stop us offering it" here. From The CTO's suggestion Elastic was a partner, to questionable trademark infringement, to potential copying of closed source code. If you read the article, it's notable that Elasticsearch continue to have working relationships with Azure and Google among others.
So there's more to this than just "should've used a different license".