She's saying it's not a stretch to interpret it in such a way. So there wouldn't be any surprises. This is the paragraph he's talking about: > “Service Source

She's saying it's not a stretch to interpret it in such a way. So there wouldn't be any surprises. This is the paragraph he's talking about: > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. IANAL, but I agree with the assessment that this means all the way to the bare metal. If you're running te Elastic on Windows or some other proprietary OS, this will be a problem for you. In any case, that's not the problematic part of the SSPL, everyone runs on open source infrastructure anyway. The real problematic part is this paragraph: > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version. This one needs a judge to set the boundaries. The last sentence is long and a bit complex, but the vague part is this: "offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version". A charitable reading suggests the intent is to target only those services that offer no value but the value of Elastic itself. For example if you run a website that let's a user sort through a bunch of documents that are stored in Elastic, then the "primary" value probably lies in the documents that you have gathered for your users. But the line is not so clear when the user supplies the documents as well. I'm pretty sure in that last case there is no way a judge would not conclude the primary value is that of Elastic. So yeah, that's a business risk, is your business just a clever packaging of Elastic, or is Elastic just the icing on the value you're delivering to your customers? Would a judge agree with that assessment? Better have your expensive IT staff explain that to your expensive lawyer team.