AGPL seems to guarantee mostly that you can obtain changes people are applying downstream in order to host your software, and apply them back up.

It does not prevent someone from making billions off of doing nothing but hosting your software because they are better than you at hosting.

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?

Nor should it, that's what OSS is about. Why should they not do what they want with your software? As long as it stays open it's OSS

Ok, but I am asking is there any solution?

Is there a way to get the benefits of OSS AND for the creators to get more then zero dollars when someone makes a shitload of money off of just putting their software on an enterprise cloud?

> Ok, but I am asking is there any solution?

> Is there a way to get the benefits of OSS AND for the creators to get more then zero dollars when someone makes a shitload of money off of just putting their software on an enterprise cloud?

You're basically asking if something can be simultaneously open and not open.

The benefits come precisely because someone can come along and create a successful business using your software without owing you anything. That is the reason for the benefits.

Licensing software accomplishes that, but you lose the freedoms OSS provides.

You also have to take into account that companies use OSS to gain adoption and pull off once they're established. This is why GPL and AGPL are essential. It ensure everyone has to contribute back.