The Open Source licensing war is over

I do not share this opinion at all. On the contrary, I believe that the day software licensing ceases to be relevant, we will slowly and inevitably return to times of slow technological development, expensive and insecure services, and high levels of legal conflict.

>Back when I worked at AWS, we surveyed developers to ask what they most valued in open source leadership. You might think that contributing code to well-known open source projects would rank first, but it didn’t. Not even second or third. Instead, the No. 1 criterion developers used to judge a cloud provider’s open source leadership was that it “makes it easy to deploy my preferred open source software in the cloud.”

This seems intuitive, however, I'm puzzled by the next paragraph:

>I’m not suggesting that contributions don’t matter, but they don’t matter for the reasons you might think. One of the things we did well at AWS was to work with product teams to help them discover their self-interest in contributing to the projects upon which they were building cloud services, such as Elasticache. We were not focused on earning kudos from “the community” (the most overused and underdefined word in all of open source), but rather on putting the product teams in a better position to support customers. Guess what? It worked. Although not perfect, a swelling population of AWS product teams is contributing in significant ways to open source projects.

It's bizarre for an AWS stan to endorse the restrictive Llama 2 license in light of what went down between AWS and Elastic/MongoDB. This "swelling population of AWS product teams" who are contributing is only a recent phenomenon and doesn't reflect the historical trend. Personally, I support the SSPL. I'd like to see a dissection of the author's claim discounting the AWS forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana.

Well considering Matt Asay is VP of Developer Relationships at MongoDB there is no surprise he fights for redefining Open Source in a way it serves MongoDB interests :)