It's just a change to make sure that those who resell ES as a service share their code.
We use AWS's ES. And, as far as I'm concerned they already open-source their version.
SSPL is actually helping the open-source community here
We use AWS's ES. And, as far as I'm concerned they already open-source their version.
SSPL is actually helping the open-source community here
No, its purpose is clearly to prevent others from reselling ES as a service at all since it's effectively impossible for anyone offering ES as a service to comply with the SSPL, if they were only concerned about others that offer ES as a service sharing their code AGPLv3 would be sufficient.
> The SSPL allows free and unrestricted use, as well as modification, with the simple requirement that if you provide the product as a service, you must also publicly release any modifications as well as the source code of your management layers under SSPL.
Not a lawyer, but I think AWS fall foul of "as well as the source code of your management layers" because they have a massive amount of closed source stuff running behind their ES service.
GPL licenses are not SSPL compatible, so it would likely still be impossible to comply even if their ES service was entirely open source.
Meaning the entire codebase of the infrastucture that provides the offering. I.e. the underlying code behind AWS. Not a big deal right?
Unfortunately for you, there's a decent chance that AWS freezes their support at a version before this license change, and never offers upgrades. As far as I know, AWS has never agreed to offer services based on code under the SSPL license.
...and it isn't helping anyone (other than the licensor) let alone the F/OSS community: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116
MPLv2, EPLv2, xGPLv3 are strictly libre even if not as wildly copyleft as SSPL.