> There is a ton of work on top of Lucene.

1. All of which is useless without Lucene. In fact, it wouldn't have been possible without Lucene. Thus, by your own twisted argument, Elastic "stole" Lucene's work.

2. Not all of the code in ElasticSearch is written by Elastic. Co. It's not their sole codebase. They have no monopoly on it. Maybe if they never took in contributions from others, but they did.

> And Lucene is still OSS.

OpenSearch is still OSS. The ES base that OS forked from is also OSS.

> ... a monopoly like Amazon from taking over.

Now I know you're being dishonest. Amazon never had a monopoly on ES, it still has no monopoly on OS. It's Elastic (like CockroachDB, that you mention) that are trying to enforce an artificial monopoly. Of themselves.

If you want to find out whether ES is really the "little guy" or the "monopolist", try providing a hosted service of their latest release and see how they react. It doesn't matter if you've contributed code to ES before, it doesn't matter if you're the most prolific contributor to Lucene.

It doesn't matter if you can build a better version of ES or provide better service. Elastic Co. (and CockroachDB Inc.) will simply not allow you to compete.

----

For once, try pointing the finger fairly, at everyone. Try judging everyone with the same set of laws/morals. Hold your heroes to the same standards, at least, as your villians.

CockroachDB is doing the right thing and I bet ES would have done it much sooner if they had any clue that Amazon is going to screw the small guy.

Also your arguments doesn't make any sense. Lucene is still OSS and OpenSearch is not Lucene but built of Elastic code. They didn't rebuild everything from scratch but literally used the code Elastic wrote.

No one argued OpenSearch is not OSS.

And sorry - if you think Amazon as a company is not screwing the small guy, I feel sorry for you.

Elastic also screwed plenty of small guys to get to where they are. And they're no longer small.

> Also your arguments doesn't make any sense.

Thank you, I used your twisted logic to arrive at them.

> Lucene is still OSS and OpenSearch is not Lucene but built of Elastic code.

And Elastic is not Lucene but built of Lucene code. So why is it okay for Elastic to build a proprietary package using OSS code, but not okay for AWS to build an OSS package using OSS code?

> They didn't rebuild everything from scratch but literally used the code Elastic wrote.

1. OpenSearch is more than ES Community Edition. OpenSearch does have some code of its own; significant enough to matter. Code that was considered basic featureset that Elastic refused to add, even rejecting PRs. What do you do when your PRs that add significant features are rejected? Especially when the reason is, "because we don't want you to compete with our proprietary packages"? How FOSS is a project, really, when it refuses such PRs?

2. Like Elastic didn't rebuild everything from scratch but literally used the code (as a library) Lucene authors wrote. So why is it morally okay for Elastic to profit off of OSS work they didn't do, but not for AWS to build OSS off of OSS?

> No one argued OpenSearch is not OSS.

You called it 'stolen'. Why is it not stealing when Elastic builds a proprietary package off of OSS code, including code that was donated specifically to be included in an OSS package, when you claim it is 'stealing' to make an OSS package of the same license and with copyright notices preserved from another OSS package.

> Amazon as a company is not screwing the small guy

I know exactly where and how Amazon as a company is screwing the small guys. This is not one of them. This is a field so full of strawmen it is difficult to see where it ends.

> I feel sorry for you.

Please keep your sympathies to yourself. You need it more than I do right now. If nothing else, then for the simple task of judging your heroes with the same yardsticks as your villians.