No. of Recommendations: 4
Kinda.

Jan 29, 2019 Shay Banon gave keynote at ElasticOn New York.

He announced that the commercial x-pack features would be opened and available on github. They are still paid commercial products. So you can’t do anything with it unless you have the proper licenses. But there they are.

https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/tree/master/x-pack

Here’s the keynote if you want it. The applicable part starts around 30:30. Got to this from a Facebook ad. Looking at phone with shifty eyes.

https://www.elastic.co/elasticon/tour/2019/new-york

Darth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Saw it, yes their commercial version is proprietary. It has both free and paid features. I still have not figured out why someone would want the paid features. Perhaps a question to IR. I am trusting management knows what they are doing. So, did take a position. I don't see Opendistro as a challenge. As we discussed it seems more of a defensive move by AWS to protect its AWS elastisearch. But for the lockup overhang this stock should also be at a multiple like ZS, MDB....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why do enterprises pay for X-pack.

If we take a look at that collaboration report from Smartsheet. Enterprises pay for security, compliance, gainining a competitive advantage, increase efficiencies, and scale. Among other things.

That’s what X-pack offers.

Darth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
https://kinsta.com/knowledgebase/wordpress-elasticsearch/

Been doing a little doodling around with Elastic Search, why and why not, etc. It occurs to me that the #1 reason to use Elastic Search is because of SQL databases. By their very nature SQL databases relatively suck at searching of very large caches of data. They were simply not designed for such things.

SQL is a very mature technology, and as such things like the internal combustion engine, gets more and more efficient and mature. However, there is only so good that it can get.

Yet with all these SQL databases out there, something has to give to give them the ability to do search with modern quantities of data. And it is not like data pools are getting any smaller. Thus Elastic.

The same applies everywhere for Elastic as data piles up geometrically larger and larger.

Yes, Elastic collects IoT. In fact Elastic has a specific product Beat, to do so. As data pools get larger and larger, and real time use or the data becomes more and more necessary (and real time use makes speed even more imperative) the need for Elastic grows and grows. How the heck are you going to secure a highway full of autonomous cars without being able to as rapidly as possible identify a possible security intrusion? Splunk is not fast enough - period.

Just one of many issues.

The open source aspect is no different than Mongo. A corporation can use Mongo for FREE right now. They can take everything they want from 3.6, host it themselves, create whatever extensions and upgrades they want, and pay Mongo squat. Hey, that is mostly what Apple does.

But it is these high end uses, that continue to grow, and the larger the more complex they are and the more you are going to pay for the premium products and not even bother to try to do it for free, that will be the smidgen of users that pay. True for Elastic, true for Mongo, true for Postgres, et al.'

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<<He announced that the commercial x-pack features would be opened and available on github. They are still paid commercial products. So you can’t do anything with it unless you have the proper licenses. But there they are.>>>

This ensures that Elastic remains the #1 most used and played with product, it enables customers to experiment with it and modify it etc. to be as creative as possible to find new use cases, it reduces Elastic's marketing and R&D costs, and yet it still keeps the economic benefits to Elastic.

That is largely the way of the cloud. You give things away to get things. And what you get comes from the top tier of potential customers (a smidgen of them) but those customers are lucrative and can add up to tens of thousands of enterprises and entities.

I went a little further to read some of the links to Elastic's purchase of they analytical program that was originally designed to work with Splunk. That program's early adopter was a small community bank. The bank needed a way to spot debit and credit card fraud for cards drawn from their system. However, cookie cutter off the shelf AI/ML software was not sufficient and they were too small to have data scientists on the payroll. The program was able to be tailored to match the specific issues of the community bank...and BINGO, in the first 3 months they saved more than $75k in fraud charges, and that was just their initial experimental run.

The bank is planning on trying to get other community banks in on the action and build a much larger community of banks protecting themselves from Fraud using this system.

I.e., a brand new green field product in a vertical no one had even considered worthy of investing in for such a fraud product.

Now, how large can this vertical get, and how many hundreds or thousands of other verticals can find utility by derivations of what this vertical has done?

That is the viral nature of what Elastic wants to happen. They want to make it happen with open source. To enable experimentation. To have no fetters on how fast it can grow (without Elastic having to pay for sales and marketing for all this growth, or R&D for all this growth - let the community do its work) and then monetize this increasing and geometric growth of use cases with the X products that their top tier clients will need.

If you do not think that Elastic can monetize this viral growth using this open source methodology, then don't invest. It is simple. Elastic believes it can monetize this in spades while maintaining its open source roots, and far from giving things away, Elastic will actually get far more back in terms of viral adoption, creating new green fields, subsidizing marketing and R&D expenses, and undercutting all would be competitors all at the same time.

That is the business model. We as investors are fully informed, nothing is hidden from us, etc.

Overtime Elastic will continue to grow and grow into new verticals, new capabilities, etc., and the same use of the open source community while monetizing the high end will continue into perpetuity, or until Elastic becomes disrupted, runs out of market, or Amazon consumes the world!

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Lest there be any confusion about Amazon’s intention with Open Distro.

Guy on Open Distro forum.

“Hey this thing doesn’t integrate with my AWS Elasticsearch Service”

Here’s AWS response.

Hi, Amazon Elasticsearch Service does not currently support Open Distro for Elasticsearch - though that is our intention over time as we launch these features on the service. This will enable us to use Open Distro for Elasticsearch to involve the community in much of the new feature development for the Amazon Elasticsearch Service and will give users the ability to provide feedback and contribute ahead of the open source features being made available on the service. We do expect the Open Distro for Elasticsearch Kibana plugins to be fully compatible with what is running on the service - assuming you are using the corresponding version.


Once you dummies do all the work for us and give us a good enough product then you can pay us for it.

Can’t make that reply up.

https://discuss.opendistrocommunity.dev/t/unable-to-connect-...

Darth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tinker,

I hear what you are saying and you are great at what you do. The thing that continues to get me, in regards to your post, is it still sounds more like story than numbers.

The numbers say that their R&D as a percentage of revenue is the worst compared to AYX, EVBG, MDB, OKTA, SMAR, SQ, TTD, TWLO, ZS. Their S&M is almost the worst, only slightly better than OKTA and SMAR. Yes the percentages for ESTC on both are slightly lower than last quarter but still worse than last year. I am using GAAP numbers which might not be the correct numbers to use, but that is where I have trouble.

The story (at least the post you just made) does not seem to match up, and if it does, then R&D and S&M would be even higher if it weren't for ESTC making it open source (that is not exciting to me).

Having said all of that, I completely agree with you that making it open source opens up ALL KINDS of use cases they NEVER would have thought of and thus should keep them growing very fast for a long time.

I am still on the fence for now.

Daniel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If Amazon has a great product, an enterprise great product, they would release on their service first. Then, if they were serious about being for open source, they would open up for community improvements.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Dan,

Might want check the numbers you’re using. Elastic’s R&D in most recent quarter was 30% of revenue and S&M was 48%. And trending down. And better than the year ago provided in their prospectus. Year ago was 36% and 49% respectively.

Those are not surprisingly high numbers. MDB was 31% and 49% respectively for example. It’s hard to compare them with somebody in a completely different market or product maturity level like SQ.

Darth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Darth,

Ok, so you ARE using Non-Gaap numbers. That is my fault! I am still learning all of the correct numbers to use. I do see that changes things.

I apologize Tinker for not having all of the correct information before making my post.

Daniel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The numbers say that their R&D as a percentage of revenue is the worst compared to AYX, EVBG, MDB, OKTA, SMAR, SQ, TTD, TWLO, ZS. Their S&M is almost the worst, only slightly better than OKTA and SMAR.

Elastic is properly spending a ton on S&M and R&D. What Elastic gets for outcomes from the open source solution is far more than they would get if they were the only ones doing the S&M and R&D. The example of the community bank is just one of thousands of examples I would guess. All of which are not needed to be paid for by Elastic. Thus Elastic benefits from having the power of far more R&D and S&M than they could otherwise afford.

Whether or not Elastic is a good investment, who knows. Market sentiment may be changing again. Maybe this time for good, maybe not. Who knows. Splunk has 9x the revenues or so but only 4x the market cap, if Splunk is a true comparator. It may not be. We have often seen the disruptor remain higher valued than the successful companies they compete with.

But to conclude, it is not that Elastic does not have to spend money on R&D and S&M. They do, they should, and I think they should spend as much as they can as it is a land and expand thingy like most everything else these days.

It is that Elastic gets far more bang for the buck in the Elastic platform's ability to sell itself and improve itself because of he open source community than it could ever come close to affording itself if it had to do all the R&D and all the S&M itself.

At least that is the hypothesis of why open source can make for a superior business model, and why Elastic continues to support the open source model. It certainly is allowing Elastic to underprice Splunk even as Elastic appears to be able to overperform Splunk, at least in some use cases.

Further, just being open source is becoming more of a requirement for a enterprise to adopt the product to begin with. I do not know how pervasive that requirement is yet, but you do read a bit about it as a real thing.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is AWS Elasticsearch open source or proprietary to AWS? If it is the latter there maybe some issues if they take a development from Open distro and make it proprietary. Maybe better legal minds can chime in...

Also, up in Saul's someone was saying that Mongo code was not open. That is the reason why AWS or anyone simply didn't build on it. They had to create their own base code (Aurora etc.) and build APIs to connect to Mongo. If that is true then the fact Elastic source code itself is open source does reduce its CAP. Isn't it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Also, up in Saul's someone was saying that Mongo code was not open. That is the reason why AWS or anyone simply didn't build on it. They had to create their own base code (Aurora etc.) and build APIs to connect to Mongo. If that is true then the fact Elastic source code itself is open source does reduce its CAP. Isn't it?

MDB owns its code and can move features at will between free and premium. AWS is not using MDB but instead an older API of 3.6.

ESTC appears to have interlaced premium features within freemium features making it very difficult not to violate the pay wall even when that was not the intention.

That is how I understand it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mongo is very much open source.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I believe this article explains the nuance pretty well and the vulnerability of the open source business model:

https://stratechery.com/2019/aws-mongodb-and-the-economic-re...

Unlike software companies built around third-party open source projects, we own the intellectual property of our offerings since we are the creators of the software, enabling our proprietary software subscription business model…Our primary subscription package is MongoDB Enterprise Advanced, our comprehensive offering for enterprise customers that can be run in the cloud, on-premise or in a hybrid environment. MongoDB Enterprise Advanced includes our proprietary database server, advanced security, enterprise management capabilities, our graphical user interface, analytics integrations, technical support and a commercial license to our platform. We also offer MongoDB Atlas, our cloud hosted database-as-a-service, or DBaaS, offering that includes comprehensive infrastructure and management of our Community Server offering.

Basically, MongoDB sells three things on top of its open source database server:
Additional tools for enterprise companies to implement MongoDB
A hosted service for smaller companies to use MongoDB
Legal certainty

The importance of this last one can not be overstated: MongoDB’s enterprise version and hosted service are not governed by the AGPL — or, as of late last year, a new MongoDB-created license called the Server Side Public License (SSPL). The SSPL is like the AGPL on steroids: it compels companies selling MongoDB-as-a-service to not only open-source their modifications, but also open-source their entire stack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Darth and All:

Can anyone point me to whether ESTC has either:

1) SSPL licensing
2) AGPL licensing

In the case of MDB, these do exist and have existed....and MDB owns the IP....not the open source community.

But not sure about ESTC...do they have the two licenses above and do they own the entire code?.....anyone?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In the case of MDB, these do exist and have existed....and MDB owns the IP....not the open source community.

You cannot license something unless you own it.

Denny Schlesinger
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Elastics license. Elastic has full control of source code without equivocation.

https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/master/license...

Restrictions. Nothing in Section 2.1 grants You the right to (i) use the
Commercial Software Source Code other than in accordance with Section 2.1
above, (ii) use a Derivative Work of the Commercial Software outside of a
Non-production Environment, in any production capacity, on a temporary or
permanent basis, or (iii) transfer, sell, rent, lease, distribute, sublicense,
loan or otherwise make available the Commercial Software Source Code, in whole
or in part, to any third party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, You may
maintain a copy of the repository in which the Source Code of the Commercial
Software resides and that copy may be publicly accessible, provided that you
include this Agreement with Your copy of the repository.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Elastic owns its software as does Mongo. There is nothing stopping anyone from taking Mongo’s latest code, in its entirety, and offering it up on a server for hosting commercially and not paying Mongo a single penny! Nothing!

All that the offerer of this commercial enterprise is required to do is make any of the code they create open and available to everyone. This, as a practical matter, is suppose to be sufficient to preclude anyone wanting to do this on a commercial basis.

But consider, since AWS gets paid on a use bases, no matter what software they are using, and AWS has a huge competitive advantage of getting users to use their system, AWS can make money by providing Mongo 4.2 for free, commercially, and the only payment they need to make is make open to all the code they create. Everyone could then pay AWS for the runtime usage (without paying Mongo anything) and everyone can copy the code, exactly to the bit, and create their own Mongo instances without paying Mongo a penny. And then run it on AWS - thus AWS getting paid.

AWS gets paid either way. They probably will not do it, but there is nothing stopping them from doing this under Mongo’s current license.

This differs from Elastic, whose license already forbids this from happening on a commercial basis.

Topic settled. Mongo is open source, very much so. Elastic is as well, but Elastic actually forbids commercial use of the sort specified above straight in its license, whereas Mongo does not. With Mongo you just have to open up all the code and your good. That is your fee.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tinker:

Are you absolutely sure about that?

I thought ESTRC was under Apache and that allows anyone to use it?

https://www.influxdata.com/blog/copyleft-and-community-licen...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/master/LICENSE...

https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/hadoop/current...

https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-net/blob/master/lic...

https://www.zdnet.com/article/open-source-growing-pains-is-o...


From the get-go, Elastics's business model has been based on a combination of open source and proprietary software. The core Elastic stack, which includes Elasticsearch, Kibana, Logstash, and Beats are all Apache 2.0 open source-licensed. The contention is over the Elastic Stack Features (extensions or plug-ins), formerly called the X-Pack, which handled security, alerting, monitoring, reporting, graph analytics, and machine learning. They were formerly treated as closed proprietary software, originally making the assemblage a classic open core offering, with some features available for free, while others were available only via paid subscription. As we'll state below, excluding the opening up of code for view, we believe that's where they should have stayed. And, as those features were proprietary, not surprisingly it spawned a third party ecosystem of alternatives for them.

The challenge is that the road to confusion is paved with good, or more aptly, highly idealistic intentions. In an admirable move, Elastic subsequently made the source code for Elastic Features public and downloadable, with limits preventing third parties from offering them as commercial SaaS services. But in so doing, as AWS contended, the files in the downloadable folders ended up comprising a mix of Apache 2.0 and Elastic-licensed code, making things confusing. Elastic states that in the repository, the Elastic license and Apache license code are in different folders and maintains that the differences are quite plain to see. To our eyes, the differences are pretty subtle. Nonetheless, even if Elastic had built a bigger Chinese wall between the Apache and Elastic-licensed code, there's no guarantee that Amazon would have stood still.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mongo is open source but it owns the IP. I believe this to be the case even for 3.6 and before versions which were under AGPL.

Elastic has an open source version under Apache 2.0. Does it own the IP for it? I think not. (They do clearly state their proprietary version is not open source. I think it is called basic and is a step below their Gold package.)

Also can you see the Mongo Code like the Elastic code?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Duma,

What point are you trying to make? Both Mongo and Elastic are open source. Both companies products can be used for free forever in their entirety. For Mongo you don’t even have write any new code. Just host it. Ir mLab! Yes, mLab did just that and then built some onboarding and other miscellaneous software and users paid run time to mLab and that was about it.

Key aspects of Elastic are proprietary. If you want to create forked alternatives you can build an mLab. It is even easier w Mongo. All you need to do is give away this miscellaneous code.

This has been Microsoft’s business model. They give away the rights to any revenue for any third party extension (any commercial extension for Excel as an example). Not the same of course but it is open.

Mongo is not like Microsoft, you can take and use the entirety of the code for free. Just open your additional code.

Elastic is closer to Microsoft in that it specifically proprietizes aspects of the software. If you can create your own alternatives to these proprietary extensions w out infringing then you can take the whole and sell it w your work arounds.

That is the price of open source.

You think they gave away the ship then don’t invest. I’ve made my opinion known in detail along w the great power and benefits the open source model also brings to the owner of the project. Make no mistake about it, that is Elastic. The Lucene code is not theirs but everything useful on top of it is and Elastic has chosen to treat most of it as complete open source and keep the rights to the most valuable parts.

I’ve explained the rationale why someone might do this. AT&T did this when they could not complete a product.

Arosta’s functionality is open sourced but never as good and it has not hurt Arista in the least.

So I am not sure what your point is. No, Elastic has not given away the ship, yes, AWS can try to do what it wants w both Elastic and Mongo - even 4.2.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, from what I read Elastic puts their premium stuff on GitHub and the Apache 2.0 open source items are somewhere else. I have also read there is confusion about what's premium because "you can see it, but you just can't use it."


I would like to think you shouldn't have to delve into these matters as an investor because it should be pretty straight forward. Elastic has open sourced basic items and certain things come at a cost. People are apparently buying premium things because their revenues are going up. Apparently not. Apparently this needs to be looked into, adding to the complexity of this company. Even number of shares outstanding to calculate enterprise value and when the insiders can sell is complex with this company.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
My understanding is in a true open source (Apache 2.0) no one owns the IP. That is basically the spirit of open source. Elastic open source comes under that. So, anyone can take it, do whatever they want and there is no need to contribute back, i.e. no need to open up their additional code that wrote on top of Elastic open source.
OTOH Mongo has always said they own the IP for even their pre 3.6 versions under AGPL not Apache. So, to comply one has to open their own code for anything built on top of Mongo. Correct me if I am wrong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
My understanding is in a true open source (Apache 2.0) no one owns the IP.

How can you license something that is not yours? If no one owns it there is no need to license it, it's pubic domain.

Denny Schlesinger
 

# Copyright 2013, 2019 Denny Schlesinger
#
# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
# You may obtain a copy of the License at
#
# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
# limitations under the License.
#
# Autor Denny Schlesinger
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Did you guys miss my last post on this?

I attached the Elastic license. It covers all of the topics that you have discussed. The license for the basic and free and how you can use it and change it.

The license for the commercial products and and how you can and can’t use it.

Here it is again.

https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/master/license...

Tinker has the gist of it. That’s about as deep as we need to go unless we start writing Elastic code and need to lawyer up.

Darth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Darth:

That license was from April 2018...1 year ago. The question is whether they gave up their rights with the way they licensed it through Apache.

The facts on the ground do NOT support that ESTC is in control and that MDB is not. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case based on these facts:

1) AWS did NOT use MongoDB (They used DocumentDB). They used Also used an OLDER API from 3.6 and before since MDB changed its licensing before it went public and has both APLG and SSPL licensing intact and enforceable.

2) AWS DID take the exact code from ESTC (minus the proprietary stuff) and even called it Elasticsearch (though I think they open themselves up to litigation there for sure).

So how can what Tinker and you keep saying be true yet not comport with the above 2 facts. If what you claim is true, AWS should be using the actual 4.02 of Mongo and their actual code......they do not. And if what you say is true, they should not use any code from open ESTC open....but they do.

And where is the AGPL and SSPL licensing from ESTC (or some version of copyleft licensing)?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And again from your actual link:

To the extent any condition of this Agreement conflicts with any license to the Open Source
Software, the Open Source Software license will govern with respect to such
Open Source Software only.
Elastic may also separately provide you with
certain open source software that is licensed by Elastic. Your use of such
Elastic open source software will not be governed by this Agreement, but by
the applicable open source license terms.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Elastic does not use AGPL and only Mongo uses the SSPL that they provided. they use the license I provided.

Download the free software and see it for yourself. I don’t know what else to tell you, that’s the license. Take it to court. In conjunction with the Apache license which is found here.

https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/tree/master/license...

But the Elastic one is the one that is pertinent to Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana, and X-Pack.

Elasticsearch is built on Apache Lucene but it’s not Apache Lucene. It’s Elastic. Everything is built on something.

Darth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So how do you explain the facts on the ground as mentioned.

If what you say is true, are we about to see a massive lawsuit from ESTC against AWS?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, the license says AWS can do what they are doing.

The Third party software statement starts with this.

The Commercial Software may contain or be provided with third party open source libraries, components, utilities and other open source software (collectively, "Open Source Software"

I don’t think that’s a reference to Apache but a reference to stuff from the community open source that might be put into an X-pack folder. Some of that stuff might or might not have license stipulations to them.


That’s the way I read that. You’re reading too much into this I think.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is Arista’s software not theirs because it runs on open source Linux?

Is Alteryx’s not their software because it runs on Windows Server it opejnsourcr Apache?

As Darth says, everything runs on something. Elastic runs on Apache/Lucene. On top of that is what Elastic runs. Part of that Elastic has made proprietary precisely because THEY CAN PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT THEY EANT TO MAKE PROPRIETARY AND THEY CONTROL WHAT CHANGED TO THE SOFTWARE THAT REMAINS Part OF THE SYSTEM.

Elastic, not Amazon, not Microsoft, not Tinker. That is because they own the system and have open sourced what they want to and not what they don’t.

No more complicated then that. Either they are idiots for creating a multi-billion dollar business from doing so, or geniuses for not doing so and having a business that sputters and goes nowhere.

Duma, don’t invest then but stop pounding your head into a brick wall on this. Both Elastic and Mongo are open source and subjec to being copied and forked - PERIOD.

It is just not that easy to do. If it were AWS would have 100% Mongo functionality and AWS would not create a new open source to try and fork Elastic. They would just fork it. They did not because they cannot do so on their own.

Don’t invest in open source. That is the business model. Red Hat was service. Mongo and Elastic maintain proprietary control over parts and not over others. Either can be copied and forked by anyone w the means. Amazon does not have means to very successfully pull this off. Maybe OpenDistro will. Who knows!

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Duma, don’t invest then but stop pounding your head into a brick wall on this. Both Elastic and Mongo are open source and subjec to being copied and forked - PERIOD.

Tinker:

I am not invested in ESTC and I am NOT pounding my head into a brick wall. But you are getting a little condencending and making claims that are simply not true.

There is nothing stopping anyone from taking Mongo’s latest code, in its entirety, and offering it up on a server for hosting commercially and not paying Mongo a single penny! Nothing!

Yes there is....the copyleft.

No, Elastic has not given away the ship, yes, AWS can try to do what it wants w both Elastic and Mongo - even 4.2.

No it can’t. That is what the whole copyleft issue was about in Oct 2018.

But listen, we are just not going to agree here so will move on.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No there is not. MLabs did it. They used Mongo open source and none of their customers were Mongo customers

Anyone can still do it by opening all the new code. License satisfied.

That is Mongo’s license restriction- PERIOD.

SO not trying to be condescending. That is just an undisputed fact.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In addition AWS can take Mongo 3.6 and create their own forked functionality on top of it to compete w Mongo. Why don’t they? Because it is not so easy to do so. What Mongo has made is hard to do. What Arista has made is hard to do. What Elastic has made is hard to do.

So hard that AWS took AT&T’s option and open sourced their proprietary data center software because they could not complete it themselves. Neither can AWS, Azure, etc as they still spend tens of millions on Arista.

If AWS succeeds it will complete a fork that will compete w Elastic. It already competes w Elastic.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If AWS succeeds it will complete a fork that will compete w Elastic. It already competes w Elastic.

Tinker


I say AWS can go fork themselves....sick of that monopoly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I concur. I hear so does Trump and his Russian allies in regard to that adulterous Bezos.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
All various versions of open source licenses in link below. MONGO is AGPL the least permissive. elastic open source is Apache (see below) a more permissive, X pack is elastic license.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/

https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/master/LICENSE...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yep, runs on top of Apache and Lucene and proprietary aspects have a separate license.

You can always make your own versions of Elastic’s proprietary products and run them on top of the open source if you wish.

Not so easy though as
Amazon takes the AT&T route to see if they can get people to solve their problems for free.

Gotta shake your head at that one. But hey, who knows. I’m too busy and am just doing nothing stock wise the next two days.

Hey, my son is using Slack and one of TEAM’s products daily in his admin job on a Mine Craft derivative server. His pay...fun and experience but he is a true corporate guy now as a young teen.

Nope, not using Smartsheet.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Thanks Tex. That is probably the best stated yet.

AWS or anybody else could pull exactly an Open Distro for MongoDB. It would be more complicated under the SSPL but they still could. They could also run Mongo as a Service under 3.6 or even later versions. All of Mongo.

They could never use X-pack Elastic software though for such a service. Ever.

So here’s basically what we’re saying.

All of Mongo is available to commercially distribute as a Service but you have to meet certain stipulations of providing source code. For AGPL you have to provide any modifications to the Mongo build. Under SSPL you have to move upstack to anything you have done to make that Mongo run as a Service. Mongo has made it clear they don’t mean whole stack. I don’t think this is fully resolved for Mongo yet.

All of the free and basic Elasticsearch is available to be distributed as a Service essentially without stipulation. Nothing that is in x-pack can be distributed whatsoever.

In summary all of Mongo can be distributed with certain obligations and the basic Elastic can be distributed but none of the x-pack software can.

Darth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hey, my son is using Slack and one of TEAM’s products daily in his admin job on a Mine Craft derivative server. His pay...fun and experience but he is a true corporate guy now as a young teen.

Nope, not using Smartsheet.


Sounds like an IT environment.

Denny Schlesinger
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
AWS or anybody else could pull exactly an Open Distro for MongoDB. It would be more complicated under the SSPL but they still could. They could also run Mongo as a Service under 3.6 or even later versions. All of Mongo.

Darth:

Are we still talking about this?

Your statement again...is not correct. And BTW, I have brought up the licensing issues numerous times and copyleft numerous times.

Mongo has proprietary features in their enterprise solution that has been 50% or so of their revenue. It is not "all" of Mongo that was open sourced.

SO again, MDB has more restrictive licensing than ESTC and ALSO has proprietary products (and of course owns the entire code well).

On the good side for ESTC, that Distro site doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traffic. But, I do expect ESTC to come out with a new licensing model (SSPL or such)....they have great cover since the other main players in open source laid that groundwork.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Mongo does have a separate license for their commercial enterprise version, and it does have additional features so I didn’t get that all correct.

But it’s not make believe. There are several perhaps dozens of companies that provide MongoDB as a service and some include their own features that bring it to a (fake) enterprise level. Here’s one Percona. MongoDB 3.6 AGPL and a comparison of Mongo Community, Enterprise, and Percona Hosted.

https://www.percona.com/software/mongo-database/feature-comp...

And another Mongoclusters.

https://www.mongoclusters.com/why-mongo-clusters

There are many others. It’s what mLabs was doing.

These companies are essentially doing with Mongo what Amazon chose not to do with DocumentDB. They are doing with Mongo what Amazon is trying to do with Elastic except AWS hasn’t launched any of their own premium features on the AWS Elasticsearch service. Yet.

There are companies that are doing this with Elastic as well.

http://www.searchly.com

None of them are required to pay a dime to Elastic or Mongo. And I don’t think any of them will have a huge impact on either’s momentum.

Darth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here is Percona’s contributions back to open source community IAW the license.

https://github.com/search?q=org%3Apercona+Percona+mongodb&am...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Darth:

So yes, we are now getting to an agreement. These open source companies must find a means to monetize all their support (financial and technical) of the open source movement.....which some people argue is a dead business model. They do proprietary add-ons as both companies have done.

MLabs is wholly owned by Mongo as you know.

AWS claims they have the core of Elastic to build around......since ESTC double down on open source....remains to be seen.

But IMO, these main companies should stick together and act similarly.....why I expect ESTC to launch new licensing models......I bet they have had a conversation or two with Mongo.

They all have similar strategies and also support the open source.....and they are singularly focused on their product....AWS cannot compete with that focus.

But AWS has its own agenda and its to lock in its customer......whereas, MDB and ESTC's agenda is to free us all from AWS's chains.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The open source aspect makes their respective products stronger. The cost of this is it also makes use of parts of their offerings free.

With Mongo, I would wager that 90% or more of those using Mongo can probably get by just using version 3.6. However, those who need more are where Mongo will make its money. Some of these may be forked. The fork may work for them, or not, but they may not even know they are being forked.

Of these paying customers, the ones who know what they need, that want compatibility, road map, support, no lock-in etc., are and will pay Mongo. Of the 60 million downloads Mongo has 9200 organic customers (not sure how they define a customer).

Of the hundreds of millions of downloads Elastic presently has 7200 organic customers (not sure how they define customers).

A smidgen powers both of them and always will power both of them.

Alteryx is fortunate they did not fall into the open source necessity. But it also does leave them more vulnerable as they build out the end to end solution and may forget to make each aspect of their solution the best. They could be hit by open source from below. Who knows.

Always risk somewhere. The broadband internet ended up taking down Microsoft (as you can see why Microsoft had to take out Netscape at any cost - it bought them some years). Microsoft adjusted and may now be the largest open source company in the world! If not, very close.

Microsoft, the open source company. Sounds like an oxymoron.

Open source creates significant benefits to the system, and thus to whomever is at the top of the system, but these benefits do not come for free.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
With Mongo, I would wager that 90% or more of those using Mongo can probably get by just using version 3.6. However, those who need more are where Mongo will make its money. Some of these may be forked. The fork may work for them, or not, but they may not even know they are being forked.

Software usage also follows a power law distribution, you want that One Percent!

Denny Schlesinger
Print the post Back To Top