Read on Twitter
some thoughts on the ELK licensing/fork situation - while it's fun to dunk on elastic, the whole thing is a pretty big L for the OSS community and the people who actually use ELK 1/
first, amazon being both the primary impetus for re-licensing and the first to announce a 'pure' OSS fork has a real specific sort of energy. 2/
the fact that i saw at least two separate announcements yesterday about pure forks ( http://logz.io , amzn) means that there's already a fractious future ahead for this new fork, and that's probably not good for end-users 3/
second, and this is more on elastic, but there were about a million better ways to handle this. apache foundation and cncf both exist, wouldn't it have been preferable to just donate the projects as-licensed? now you get nothing! 4/
really, you get worse than nothing because you've scored an own goal and allowed amzn to rush in and grab a PR win over you. 5/
last point - i would strongly urge everyone involved in this to take a few steps back at this point and think about how this is going to impact end-users and contributors. 6/
elastic's actions make ELK toxic for many purposes, but the vendor rush to fill that space should be worrisome. the right answer here is to find a trusted, neutral third-party that can take ownership of the original project under a permissive license and govern it 7/
i believe that would be best for everyone; not just current end-users and integrators, but also vendors and MSP's.
replacing one semi-benevolent corporation with another just leads us down the same road that got us here. /thread
replacing one semi-benevolent corporation with another just leads us down the same road that got us here. /thread
