> and uses badly the word "open" for stuff that is "shared source".
This is my only complaint with what Redis/Elastic/Mongo et al are doing lately.
I 100% support their right to change their licensing terms. Applaud them even - I'm fascinated to see if their attempts at new business models will work out medium/long term.
Doing that and still claiming to be "open source" is wrong. It's co-opting a term that while not solidly defined, is universally understood to mean something different to what they're offering. They're lying to their users and customers.
Elastic are muddying the waters in a grey area - where you can build Apache2 licensed or Elastic's new non-FOSS licensed versions from the same download. I reckon they need to cole clean and make if very clear that they're "partially open source".
This is my only complaint with what Redis/Elastic/Mongo et al are doing lately.
I 100% support their right to change their licensing terms. Applaud them even - I'm fascinated to see if their attempts at new business models will work out medium/long term.
Doing that and still claiming to be "open source" is wrong. It's co-opting a term that while not solidly defined, is universally understood to mean something different to what they're offering. They're lying to their users and customers.
Elastic are muddying the waters in a grey area - where you can build Apache2 licensed or Elastic's new non-FOSS licensed versions from the same download. I reckon they need to cole clean and make if very clear that they're "partially open source".