3 ms·

Can't use it for commercial, non-profit, or revenue-generating activities? Uh, this actually seems insane to me? What is it for then?

kstrauser 1y ago
My initial reaction is "entrapment". Edit: That's uncharitable of me. I strongly doubt that's the plan. But it genuinely was the first thing that came to mind.
- ParetoOptimal 1y ago
  A more than justified reaction with Microsoft.
jasonthorsness 1y ago
I'm sure these restrictions will lift once it's out of preview. They have a huge Postgres hosting business in Azure that couldn't benefit from this if it's restricted to non-commercial.
85392_school 1y ago
> PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE. The software is a pre-release version. It may not operate correctly. It may be different from the commercially released version.
jkaplowitz 1y ago
I assume that restriction is due to the public preview status. But yeah MS really ought to at least allow businesses to evaluate it for potential subsequent use after preview.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Can't use it for commercial, non-profit, or revenue-generating activities? Uh, this actually seems insane to me? What is it for then? Its a public preview, for which Microsoft probably does not wish to accept non-disclaimable liabilities for defects when used in those circumstances. It is for previewing. By people who are interested in what is in the pipeline for a more general release.
- SahAssar 1y ago
  > non-disclaimable liabilities So you are saying that MIT/ISC/GPL/Apache2 and all the other OSS licenses do open you up to liabilites?
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    I am saying being a merchant in the field of software and supply software opens you up to liabilities, and saying “Not my responsibility” does not, in most jurisdictions, actially completely shield you from all of them, correct. This may also, to a lesser extent, be true of people who are not merchants in the field of the product supplied. It’s not the license creating the liability, in either case.
    - SahAssar 1y ago
      So you are saying that the parts of for example MIT or similar licenses that in clear terms say: "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE." do not constitute something that frees you from those liabilities? Cause if so I think basically most of open-source would just shut down tomorrow.
      - kstrauser 1y ago
        I'm with you on this one. Consider all the GPL'ed software that IBM distributes via Red Hat.
- krferriter 1y ago
  This doesn't make sense to me. They could just say the software is provided as-is and Microsoft holds no liability. Which they do say elsewhere. This license goes much farther to say Microsoft can sue you if you use it.

kstrauser 1y ago

My initial reaction is "entrapment". Edit: That's uncharitable of me. I strongly doubt that's the plan. But it genuinely was the first thing that came to mind.

ParetoOptimal 1y ago
A more than justified reaction with Microsoft.

jasonthorsness 1y ago

I'm sure these restrictions will lift once it's out of preview. They have a huge Postgres hosting business in Azure that couldn't benefit from this if it's restricted to non-commercial.

85392_school 1y ago

> PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE. The software is a pre-release version. It may not operate correctly. It may be different from the commercially released version.

jkaplowitz 1y ago

I assume that restriction is due to the public preview status. But yeah MS really ought to at least allow businesses to evaluate it for potential subsequent use after preview.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> Can't use it for commercial, non-profit, or revenue-generating activities? Uh, this actually seems insane to me? What is it for then? Its a public preview, for which Microsoft probably does not wish to accept non-disclaimable liabilities for defects when used in those circumstances. It is for previewing. By people who are interested in what is in the pipeline for a more general release.

SahAssar 1y ago
> non-disclaimable liabilities So you are saying that MIT/ISC/GPL/Apache2 and all the other OSS licenses do open you up to liabilites?
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  I am saying being a merchant in the field of software and supply software opens you up to liabilities, and saying “Not my responsibility” does not, in most jurisdictions, actially completely shield you from all of them, correct. This may also, to a lesser extent, be true of people who are not merchants in the field of the product supplied. It’s not the license creating the liability, in either case.
  - SahAssar 1y ago
    So you are saying that the parts of for example MIT or similar licenses that in clear terms say: "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE." do not constitute something that frees you from those liabilities? Cause if so I think basically most of open-source would just shut down tomorrow.
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      I'm with you on this one. Consider all the GPL'ed software that IBM distributes via Red Hat.
krferriter 1y ago
This doesn't make sense to me. They could just say the software is provided as-is and Microsoft holds no liability. Which they do say elsewhere. This license goes much farther to say Microsoft can sue you if you use it.