This thread explains open source licenses: permissive ones like Apache 2.0 let you do anything, while copyleft (like GPL) requires sharing changes. There are also source-available licenses with restrictions and closed source with no access to code. Licensing is complex, and ecosystem rules matter too. The author hopes this clears things up and sparks discussion.
the @elastic relicense is progress — actually #kibana is starting:
this is a friday evening operation since it changes ~20K files and will cause conflicts in many open PRs
since it's a confusing and very emotional topic, let's where things are going 1/10
open source is coming in 2 broad flavors:
* permissive "do what you want" with the apache license 2.0 as a popular choice: this is what #logstash (dual-licensed) and #elasticsearch language clients have always been using
* copyleft "do what you want but share changes alike" 2/10
copyleft is almost like a family tree:
* GPL to share the source code for binaries
* AGPL to close the "service loophole" to share the source code for services; is an excellent read on the details 3/10
* SSPL (not OSI approved) is going a step further than the source code of the service and includes orchestration, monitoring,... of the service. if that fundamentally breaks copyleft is a heated discussion. I'm biased here but is another great read 4/10
"defined by OSI": clearly a useful convention that we should stick to (and you'll get endless screaming otherwise). but the legal foundation is much weaker than you'd expect:
though the OSI wants you to believe otherwise: 5/10
source available gives you the source code but with some "you cannot do X" where X can be offering it as a service, competing,...
some of the licenses are configurable, some are "eventual open source". but they all try to add some protection of their authors' investment 6/10
finally, the closed source group where you don't get any source code — either in the form of only being able to download a binary (which can still be free) or consuming it as a service 7/10
open source is both strict but also narrow. many people conflate license and ecosystem expectations but those are two different (though related) topics: governance, accepting contributions, including tests (which basically stops forks),... aren't covered by the license 8/10
if you have made it this far and want to see how this all maps to #elasticsearch + #kibana, the following image from the FAQ () is the best description, which should clear up most of the confusion 9/10
hope that helped and I'm already looking forward to heated responses. I might do another thread on common discussion points and how we see them in the elastic context. which is another interesting point: all relicenses had their own unique context making each one different 10/10
the @elastic relicense is progress — actually #kibana is starting:
this is a friday evening operation since it changes ~20K files and will cause conflicts in many open PRs
since it's a confusing and very emotional topic, let's where things are going 1/10open source is coming in 2 broad flavors:
* permissive "do what you want" with the apache license 2.0 as a popular choice: this is what #logstash (dual-licensed) and #elasticsearch language clients have always been using
* copyleft "do what you want but share changes alike" 2/10copyleft is almost like a family tree:
* GPL to share the source code for binaries
* AGPL to close the "service loophole" to share the source code for services; is an excellent read on the details 3/10* SSPL (not OSI approved) is going a step further than the source code of the service and includes orchestration, monitoring,... of the service. if that fundamentally breaks copyleft is a heated discussion. I'm biased here but is another great read 4/10"defined by OSI": clearly a useful convention that we should stick to (and you'll get endless screaming otherwise). but the legal foundation is much weaker than you'd expect:
though the OSI wants you to believe otherwise: 5/10source available gives you the source code but with some "you cannot do X" where X can be offering it as a service, competing,...
some of the licenses are configurable, some are "eventual open source". but they all try to add some protection of their authors' investment 6/10finally, the closed source group where you don't get any source code — either in the form of only being able to download a binary (which can still be free) or consuming it as a service 7/10open source is both strict but also narrow. many people conflate license and ecosystem expectations but those are two different (though related) topics: governance, accepting contributions, including tests (which basically stops forks),... aren't covered by the license 8/10if you have made it this far and want to see how this all maps to #elasticsearch + #kibana, the following image from the FAQ () is the best description, which should clear up most of the confusion 9/10hope that helped and I'm already looking forward to heated responses. I might do another thread on common discussion points and how we see them in the elastic context. which is another interesting point: all relicenses had their own unique context making each one different 10/10
yes
the @elastic relicense is progress — actually #kibana is starting:
this is a friday evening operation since it changes ~20K files and will cause conflicts in many open PRs
since it's a confusing and very emotional topic, let's where things are going 1/10 ... open source is coming in 2 broad flavors:
* permissive "do what you want" with the apache license 2.0 as a popular choice: this is what #logstash (dual-licensed) and #elasticsearch language clients have always been using
* copyleft "do what you want but share changes alike" 2/10 ... copyleft is almost like a family tree:
* GPL to share the source code for binaries
* AGPL to close the "service loophole" to share the source code for services; is an excellent read on the details 3/10 ... * SSPL (not OSI approved) is going a step further than the source code of the service and includes orchestration, monitoring,... of the service. if that fundamentally breaks copyleft is a heated discussion. I'm biased here but is another great read 4/10 ... "defined by OSI": clearly a useful convention that we should stick to (and you'll get endless screaming otherwise). but the legal foundation is much weaker than you'd expect:
though the OSI wants you to believe otherwise: 5/10 ... source available gives you the source code but with some "you cannot do X" where X can be offering it as a service, competing,...
some of the licenses are configurable, some are "eventual open source". but they all try to add some protection of their authors' investment 6/10 ... finally, the closed source group where you don't get any source code — either in the form of only being able to download a binary (which can still be free) or consuming it as a service 7/10 ... open source is both strict but also narrow. many people conflate license and ecosystem expectations but those are two different (though related) topics: governance, accepting contributions, including tests (which basically stops forks),... aren't covered by the license 8/10 ... if you have made it this far and want to see how this all maps to #elasticsearch + #kibana, the following image from the FAQ () is the best description, which should clear up most of the confusion 9/10 ... hope that helped and I'm already looking forward to heated responses. I might do another thread on common discussion points and how we see them in the elastic context. which is another interesting point: all relicenses had their own unique context making each one different 10/10
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
Unroll Another Thread
Convert any Twitter threads to an easy-to-read article instantly
Have you tried our Twitter bot?
You can now unroll any thread without leaving Twitter/X. Here's how to use our Twitter bot to do it.
