Hacker News Reader

Sounds good to me. This is clearly targeted at big cloud providers who have been free-riding for years on the work of open source projects.

View on HN

Does not sound good to me, for the reasons that others have mentioned. But just to be clear: if a big cloud provider uses their software to make money, that's great. That's the point of a non-restrictive license.

Yet now Elastic isn't content with competing in the market with its own managed offering (ironic because their offering is way better than AWS' anyway). Instead, they want to call themselves open source while switching to a proprietary license. Shameful.

If companies want to make the software available under a license that allows me to use it for free, examine the source code, make changes, and release those changes to the community for others to use -- everything except taking their software and re-selling it directly, then I'm 100% fine with that.

I don't care about not being allowed to compete directly with Elastic using their own product against them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com