[version_five]

The license is a wedge that's destroying the meaning of open source, it's worth complaining about, and it's evil to have done it that way. I would have preferred a commercial license that was at least honest instead of a scorched earth ecosystem takeover like they've done. In a sense it's an extension of the big tech "provide something notionally free that's too good not to use and use it to destroy competition" model.

[waffletower]

It is a wedge for some, but not at all 'evil', at least not for the reason you are providing. If you feel it is cannibalizing your company's business model, my apologies.

[version_five]

Lol is that the strawman that people have come up with, that not liking metas "only do what we allow" license must be anger about competition?

No. A good parallel would be if Microsoft (say) wrote their own linux clone that was compatible but had some proprietary enhancements that made it desirable over open source distros. The only catch being, it wasn't gpl licensed (they wrote it from scratch) it had a proprietary MS license that says you can only use it for things MS approved of, and are using it at their pleasure, to be revoked at any time.

People don't care about the license, they call it open source and move away from gnu/linux to the proprietary MS version, and now we're only doing what they allow us to.

That's exactly what's happening in the ML model world right now, but people are happy with the shiny models Facebook lets them use so they say "what's the big deal".