3 ms·

> MIT-but-not-for-Amazon. but that the problem. There cannot be MIT-but-not-for-Amazon. MIT is a do whatever you want license. The problem of 4 freedoms is r

> MIT-but-not-for-Amazon. but that the problem. There cannot be MIT-but-not-for-Amazon. MIT is a do whatever you want license. The problem of 4 freedoms is restricted in MIT, that is why GPL exists. SSPL or this license extends that to exclude AWS. You are right, they could just exclude AWS but you cannot build a license around specific people or names, aws could just change their name and avoid that. If you were writing the license, how would you rewrite this offending line to exclude only AWS like businesses? > It’s a crippling license that goes against many of the modern ideas of oss yes. this goes against MIT because that assumes AWS or the mom and pop store can use your work without contributing back and use your open source code to build a closed source software. the entire premise of 4 freedoms is that the freedom of seeing/editing code made by author is given to the ultimate end user. MIT goes against that so there is that. again, how would you rewrite that line to exclude SAAS providers who just leech off of open source projects for their own gain?

tluyben2 4y ago
> aws could just change their name and avoid that. But if you say Amazon or any of their subsidiaries. They are not going to rename Amazon to add 1 product to aws. The wording is indeed difficult; for my taste to be something not considered abuse, it would need to be integrated in a bespoke product where it offers less than 5% of said products functionality. However that would allow aws. But I think it can be rewritten or added on-to by saying something like that it cannot be offered as a distinct service meaning you cannot say ‘we offer a search engine, here is elastic’; it can be a nocode product which allows you to add search and search apis from elastic by clicking them together if that nocode product also allows for many other features not offered in elastic. So some way to convey it needs to be integrated and not just a copy you can spin up. However, that would be difficult and convoluted and hard to fight. That’s why I was thinking about adding mandatory FTEs if you use it to make money. That type of thing would simply have the aws lawyers not sign off using it.

tluyben2 4y ago

> aws could just change their name and avoid that. But if you say Amazon or any of their subsidiaries. They are not going to rename Amazon to add 1 product to aws. The wording is indeed difficult; for my taste to be something not considered abuse, it would need to be integrated in a bespoke product where it offers less than 5% of said products functionality. However that would allow aws. But I think it can be rewritten or added on-to by saying something like that it cannot be offered as a distinct service meaning you cannot say ‘we offer a search engine, here is elastic’; it can be a nocode product which allows you to add search and search apis from elastic by clicking them together if that nocode product also allows for many other features not offered in elastic. So some way to convey it needs to be integrated and not just a copy you can spin up. However, that would be difficult and convoluted and hard to fight. That’s why I was thinking about adding mandatory FTEs if you use it to make money. That type of thing would simply have the aws lawyers not sign off using it.