[Drdrdrq]

Yes, it is not. But who cares? What I care about as a user is repairability:

* can I inspect source and build it myself?

* can I fix it?

* can I share modifications with others?

Many of the new "cloud protection licenses" offer this, yet they are (by definition) not opensource.

[coagmano]

I think this is the right way to look at things, after all, these were the orignal "why" arguments in favour of open source. If we can get the same benefits while also protecting open products from megacorps like AWS, that's a better licence than a true open source licence

[__blockcipher__]

> If we can get the same benefits while also protecting open products from megacorps like AWS, that's a better licence than a true open source licence

That's your opinion, of course. IMO, there's a type of magic that happens when software is under a truly non-restrictive license. You get a level of quality and reliability in the software that is unmatched by what you get with any proprietary equivalent.

Unfortunately, most people don't really believe in FOSS. And that's okay. But boy am I getting frustrated with these companies that are happy to preach about how "open source" is amazing, until someone else is making some profit with their software and then suddenly the (extremely vague) restrictive licenses start rolling out.