Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

But, if the value-add is hosting more than the software itself, why would you prevent the 'value-adder' making the bulk of the money?

I'm like OP, trying to take a step back. What do we want here? As users? As developers? That no one does too much (or any) money hosting our software for other people willing to pay? Profit-sharing? On what basis?

Really, naively, apart from the use of the Elastic brand, that I might conceive could cause problems, who's hurting whom?



> But, if the value-add is hosting more than the software itself, why would you prevent the 'value-adder' making the bulk of the money?

Sure, but maybe there's a way for the original creators to get more than $0 (while still satisfying OSS people)?


I want anyone to be able to pick up development of the software, not needing permission to do so. If elastic the business goes under, hosted solutions should still be available, with changes still be made on it


I'm thinking this would first be an API compatibility problem? The service can be implemented in different ways, by different teams. See redpanda vs kafka or wire-compatibility for postgres?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: