He's a very MAGA guy, though.

> Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.

I'm fairly confident most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default. And that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation.

> most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default

A lot of retail goes into S&P lookalikes. And at the end of the day, they've consistently picked one over the other.

> that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation

Unlikely. Nobody has dropped NASDAQ 100-tracking funds. If anything, these guys will see long-term net inflows due to this move. S&P probably would have if they’d changed rules—this was an econometric, not business, decision.

> a man convicted of fraud

Most practitioners in the field see that as a very strong signal of future fraud.

At that level they call it financial engineering.

That's "growth hacking" for you

You can rotate any solution by 90 degrees, which would toggle the square colour of your bishop, so it doesn't ultimately matter.

> In other words, after arranging the five black pieces, it must be impossible to place the white king anywhere without it being in checkmate.

I think this is a bit ambiguous and, strictly speaking, wrong for the solution as given.

In particular, this asks for the king to be in check _mate_. Does this require all black pieces to defend each other? Otherwise, white king on the board would not be in checkmate if you place it next to a queen and can immediately capture.

From the solution, you can see it's not a checkmate requirement, just a check requirement.

> It's weird to me that the Hacker News community doesn't think that sort of competition is good.

Negative externalities. The company makes money using a free resource and disincentivises future development.

I'm sure you can see why killing the most popular business model for open source companies is bad for the ecosystem, right?

I can't? I mean, if Amazon does commercial version of Elastic better than Elastic themselves then so be it. I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not.

I do see issues with monopolies pushing inferior products onto users. But that would be a completely different issue, nothing to do with open source.

I mean it’s a free country either way then. Elastic can change the licensing and Amazon is then free to compete with a fork of the software pre-licensing change.

Amazon doesn’t really have a leg to stand on in objection here. Building a platform to re-sell an open source project may end up fracturing that open source community’s user base, that’s a consequence of their own actions.

> I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not.

According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem. Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?

> According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem.

I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license.

> Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?

They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.

> I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license.

Because parasitic antisocial behavior is viewed negatively.

> They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.

Trying to apply market dynamics to selling things you didn't produce (or pay for) is fascinating...

They both sell it for profit, but Amazon doesn’t contribute changes upstream, so the public + rest of the industry won’t benefit from their work. It’s not an equivalence.

> Amazon doesn’t contribute changes upstream

Are you sure that's the case with AGPL? Cause they can sue them and enforce the contribution. I doubt that's the case. And those who went with MIT/BSD openly allow distribution without contribution.

In the USA, small companies don’t generally have the resources to take large companies to court, even if they’re in the right.

Many companies build on top of open source to make money and don’t contribute back. That’s not the problem.

Because you don't see AWS as having sort of moral or ethical duties. I see all companies and people as having moral and ethical duties.

Why isn't this a problem for other databases then? I'm sure most cloud sell some MariaDB services. Why would they be able to profit from it?

It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.

> Why isn't this a problem for other databases then?

It is?

- MongoDB went from AGPL to SSPL

- Redis went from BSD to SSPL

- Elasticsearch went from AGPL to SSPL

- CockroachDB went from Apache to BSL

- TimescaleDB went from Apache to Apache + TLS

- Graylog went from GPL to SSPL

> It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.

That's why intellectual property law exist. If I spent years writing a book and you were allowed to copy it and sell it then obviously you're going to "out compete" me by default. You didn't incur any costs in producing the thing you're selling, duh!

Yes and the result is these databases got forked, and the community got rightfully mad.

But other databases don't need it, and stayed truly open source, because their business model doesn't rely on being the only hosting provider.

> You didn't incur any costs in producing the thing you're selling, duh!

Indeed, you gave it away for free, saying I could sell it... It doesn't take a business genius to know AWS can undercut your hosting services.

It goes to show that most of these companies don't really care about open source. They cared more about making money and open source was a useful facade to get people to contribute for free.

> don't really care about open source.

Exactly. You can sell the products of your work all the way you want.

But pretending to share with the world and then push back when the world actually use it under these same open terms is a hypocrisy.

Who's pretending? If I share something with everyone for any purpose except one specific purpose that's endangering my project's existence that's not "pretending".

And even that's overstating it because there's no prohibition of any kind. Cloud providers are free to use SSPL licensed software as long as they release all associated platform code.

After all we're sharing, right?

No "buts", this is an extremely common trend not some one-off example like you tried to claim.

Other databases are already funded by cloud companies, predate the cloud, or they're too niche to bother.

Don’t get into open source if you don’t like your users using the software however they see fit.

Don’t you see how bankrupting the Elastic devs pushes an inferior product onto users?

You need more hints that it's rude to take up a seat with your bag?

Only because you typo'd twice: it's "pervasive".

Does this logic still applies if the company is getting other benefits from having me as a user? (Genuine question, I can see arguments for both sides)

For example, if I am using the free tier of a service and "paying" by seeing ads, should I have similar expectations?

I'm not saying that's how users pay for github - in that case it's more subtle, for example by giving up control of some of their stack and bolstering github already near monopolistic network effect.