Sure, there is something to be said for reciprocating the generosity offered to you by taking only what you need.
I think this can become a complicated game of accounting though. Did Amazon take more than they need or did they just build a useful cloud service on top of a widespread open and free product that was released intentionally under those terms?
When Elastic chose the Apache license, what was the goal? Was it to allow as many people to benefit from the software as possible? If so, Amazon is clearly advancing that goal, not hindering it.
Or is the idea that Amazon is somehow blocking Elastic from competing in the cloud search space? Elastic is growing quite rapidly and Amazon's use of ES seems to have only accelerated that growth, so I don't really buy that either.
Furthermore consider this: Is Elastic reciprocating the generosity offered by Apache and the Lucene project, to which they basically did the same thing that Amazon did to them?
I think this can become a complicated game of accounting though. Did Amazon take more than they need or did they just build a useful cloud service on top of a widespread open and free product that was released intentionally under those terms?
When Elastic chose the Apache license, what was the goal? Was it to allow as many people to benefit from the software as possible? If so, Amazon is clearly advancing that goal, not hindering it.
Or is the idea that Amazon is somehow blocking Elastic from competing in the cloud search space? Elastic is growing quite rapidly and Amazon's use of ES seems to have only accelerated that growth, so I don't really buy that either.
Furthermore consider this: Is Elastic reciprocating the generosity offered by Apache and the Lucene project, to which they basically did the same thing that Amazon did to them?