- cross-posted to:
- purianesimo
- cross-posted to:
- purianesimo
You must log in or register to comment.
Haha, wow that was crazy, right everyone? Geeze, why did we even do that thing we did? What was that even? So weird!
Anyway, everything is back to the way it was before! Maybe even better! You can all come back now from the various forks and open alternatives you’ve spent the last 18 months migrating to!
That’s a good one
Hashicorp watching with rapt attention while Hudson sits in the back and laughs.
True true…
Having contacted them to get a contract going for the non free license before I doubt they actually give a shit about Foss. They literally wouldn’t give me a price without knowing how many employees the company I was being outsourced to had. And we wanted to self host so it wasn’t even a matter of their costs they literally charge based on what you look like and the schemes were insane they would charge us for amount of active systems and their traffic when we were literally self hosting them
Lol, we had a sales rep in a meeting to talk about licensing while we were already self hosting and using it. When he heard that we would store business data and log data for the same app he said that’s two different use cases, and that we’d need two licenses.
This company may be dogshit, but seat count is the standard licensing structure for most employee facing business software, including on-prem.
Most business software licensing/CRM tools requires that information to generate a quote, as price will be dependent upon several factors, including volume licensing tiers i.e. volume discounts.
Sometimes, licensing structures are simple enough that an employee or rep might be able to give you a quick ballpark without that information, but that would be the exception, not the rule.
And all of that is assuming that pricing is only based on seats, when there could be a whole lot of other variables that would be required even for their system just to generate single quote e.g. core count, support terms, etc.
To be clear, none of that means anyone should trust, or switch back to, elasticsearch. It’s just a minor peak into the mundane horrors of business software licensing.
Usually in the observability space it is primarily based on the volume of data and sometimes seat count. Especially if it’s freemium like elastic where users can get an idea of volume by running a POC of the free version. Companies do this because of small teams who deploy large infra that would make contracts unprofitable
Generally the elastic or usage/volumetric type billing structures are used on SaaS/cloud products, not on-prem.
Although it’s entirely possible that elasticsearch, and other vendors in the space use that pricing model for their on-prem customers.
Regardless, that’s even more of a reason why it would be very difficult to give a quote without being first having a presales meeting with a solution architect or knowledgeable rep.
How about instead of elastic customers moved to Redis or Postgres ?
Does the pricing/licensing suddenly change ? Hmm ?
Elasticsearch provides a different feature set than Redis or Postgres. I’ve seen apps that use all 3… but anyway.
It is a little weird to charge per-seat for a search database that is usually integrated into a product, and not used directly by employees. Usually that kind of pricing model is reserved for developer tools like Splunk (notoriously overpriced), or game engines like Unity/Unreal Engine.
Enterprise licensing for self-hosted setups is priced per chunk of 64 GB of RAM in your cluster. I.e. if you run Elastic on 2 machines of 32 GB RAM each, you pay for 1 node. It sounds like there may have been some poor communication going on, because they definitely don’t base the pricing for self-hosted setups on the number of employees or anything like that.
They’re also not super uptight about you going over the licensing limit for a while. We’ve been running a couple of licenses short since we scaled our cluster up a while back. Our account manager knows and doesn’t care.
But I just moved to opensearch.
https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch
OpenSearch is a community-driven, open source fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana following the license change in early 2021.
For how long…?
As long as the AGPL remains enforcable.
They got forked and were losing users?
I don’t understand how their decision 3 years ago “worked” and that’s why they’re changing the license again.
Maybe it “worked” enough for the execs to realize it was a mistake?
The tl;dr is that we will be adding AGPL as another license option next to ELv2 and SSPL in the coming weeks.
Well, it is still yet to come and other license isn’t going away; i will wait and see
it kinda feels like they need more licenses to complete the collection idk
So how does triple licensed code work as an end user? They have multiple packages and i pick the one with the license i like? Or just one package and i just declare im using the AGPL ‘essence’ in my instance?
See, thats how they getcha now.
You have to buy a elasticsearch brand AGPL scented candle to light while you install the packages. If you aren’t smelling their official blend of sandalwood, jasmine and developer blood, it reverts back to Elv2.
You might say that the definition is ‘Elastic’
Either one of those, or it’ll be one package and you choose the edition at install time, and it installs the appropriate features. (Or, if using a package manager, your distro will have the free one, and there will probably be a nonfree package available from the elastic site.)
There are also cases where it’s the exact same code base, but purchasing a license allows you to do things that you otherwise couldn’t (for AGPL, that would mean the ability to run a modified version of the code without making your modifications available to customers).
Ah, that makes sense, thank you.
Sweet! Now let’s all go commence scowling at Redis until they do the same.
Literally jumping
That’s where I stopped reading.
I work contract. I hope the ‘litchally’ morons never find out they’re paying a tax - just a few percent - for being morons.
