> So they are basically arguing that a restriction in the license is intended to stop hyperscalers, not that it actually restricts the usage of software in any

> So they are basically arguing that a restriction in the license is intended to stop hyperscalers, not that it actually restricts the usage of software in any field! Stopping hyperscalers is restricting usage in a field. The primary reason that field-of-use restrictions are part of the OSD is to avoid excluding anyone from the community, and also to avoid fights about whether anyone belongs. Historically, military uses were often excluded in certain licenses — but just what constituted military use could be very hard to determine and potentially could result in endless litigation. Dual-use technology, anyone? The same reasoning applies to hyperscaling. If you allow any restrictions on field of use in "Open Source", then a fundamental guarantee that countless users of OSS have been counting on goes up in smoke. Before, it was software that anyone could use for any purpose. But now, everyone has to wonder, "am I actually allowed to use this Open Source Software"? I firmly agree with these arguments, and I'm glad that the OSI continues to be intellectually and morally consistent in applying them — despite your asserting that they must be corrupt to do so.