Elastic didn't really relicense ElasticSearch. It forked it.

🧵 A thread.

1/18

There's a lot of talk in the open source community about the cost of forking.

2/18
- "Forking is best avoided."

- "Forking is a last resort option."

- "Forking is like a nuclear weapons. It's a defensive threat."

3/18
Forking is seen as impractical and extremely expensive.

And that's a Really Good Thing(tm).

It's a forcing function for figuring out solutions that are broadly acceptable across the community.

4/18
The thing is, the cost of forking is mostly a function of three things:

1⃣ the size of the community that you can bring along with you,
2⃣ whether you need to rename your fork (who owns the trademark), and
3⃣ how much infrastructure you need to rebuild.

5/18
When that "community" is your employees, when you own the trademark, and control the infrastructure, then forking is really cheap. You just tell your employees to now contribute to your new fork, and you're done.

6/18
So the whole forcing function that the threat of forking has on the community is essentially lost. You don't get your way, and you fork.

7/18
Of course, with GPL, you can't just fork and close-up the source code, unless you've secured re-licensing right from all of your contributors. This is why the GPL+CLA combo is so prevalent with FOSS vendors.

8/18
With permissive licenses, there is no such need. You can literally embed the software into anything that is proprietary. As long as you give proper attribution and keep the open source license around FOR THAT PART OF THE CODE ONLY.

9/18
No one can stop me from forking Node today and releasing it as proprietary software.

10/18
What I can't do however is:

1⃣ move all of its community to contribute to my proprietary fork overnight,
2⃣ use the "Node" trademark, and
3⃣ leverage all of the existing infrastructure that isn't mine.

11/18
So the problem with Elastic forking ElasticSearch isn't the CLA, or its new license.

It's that it:

1⃣ *is* the community,
2⃣ owns the trademark, and
3⃣ controls the infrastructure.

12/18
So from the very start, none of what would have made forking costly was ever an issue for Elastic. At any point in time, Elastic could have forked at practically zero cost.

Of course, that's a powerful weapon and an incredible power imbalance in a community.

13/18
A key element of community stability (the shared threat of forking) was lacking from the get go.

The lack of open governance, of community trademark ownership, and of a genuine community of contributors beyond Elastic employees, are at the heart of the problem.

14/18
Folks like @beep and @adactio have started calling this "nominally open source."

I think it's more "Schrödinger open source."

Despite the license, you don't really know whether it is open source or not until you open the envelope and find out the cat is dead. 😿

15/18
With that framing in mind, ElasticSearch was never really open source. It was always in this unstable, "quantic" state of being both open and close, up until a decision was made and it was no longer open.

16/18
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We really need to start looking beyond licensing to understand open source and really assess the risk of buying into an open source project.

https://t.co/wuUJMh1RtX

17/18
Licensing clearly is a factor, but community health, governance, and trademark ownership are just as important.

It's time we truly recognize this.

18/18

More from Tech

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
1. One of the best changes in recent years is the GOP abandoning libertarianism. Here's GOP Rep. Greg Steube: “I do think there is an appetite amongst Republicans, if the Dems wanted to try to break up Big Tech, I think there is support for that."

2. And @RepKenBuck, who offered a thoughtful Third Way report on antitrust law in 2020, weighed in quite reasonably on Biden antitrust frameworks.

3. I believe this change is sincere because it's so pervasive and beginning to result in real policy changes. Example: The North Dakota GOP is taking on Apple's app store.


4. And yet there's a problem. The GOP establishment is still pro-big tech. Trump, despite some of his instincts, appointed pro-monopoly antitrust enforcers. Antitrust chief Makan Delrahim helped big tech, and the antitrust case happened bc he was recused.

5. At the other sleepy antitrust agency, the Federal Trade Commission, Trump appointed commissioners
@FTCPhillips and @CSWilsonFTC are both pro-monopoly. Both voted *against* the antitrust case on FB. That case was 3-2, with a GOP Chair and 2 Dems teaming up against 2 Rs.

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party