undefined | Better HN

0 pointssatvikpendem1y ago0 comments

If Amazon can successfully do it such that other companies whose products they were hosting had to relicense to source available from AGPL, then, based on the strength of their lawyers, it is likely that those integrations are not actually needed to be released. And even if they were, it doesn't really matter, people don't use AWS for their source code.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

xyzzy_plugh1y ago· 2 in thread

I am not sure how to interpret what you have written. Are you suggesting Amazon operated and sold AGPL-licenses software, and thus made a licensed program available over the network, but did not comply with the terms of the license? I am not aware of any evidence of such.

satvikpendemOP1y ago

Amazon repackaged MongoDB, an originally AGPL licensed work, and did indeed comply with AGPL, but that means nothing because they did not modify the source code at all, they merely packaged it up into a hosted service. Because they followed the terms of the license but were accused of "leeching off" of MongoDB, even though they clearly licensed it to be used as such, MongoDB then changed their license to a source available one. My point is that if Amazon's lawyers, which are likely better and stronger than most anyone here on HN's, approved such actions with regards to AGPL works, then it's very likely that they were within their rights to do so via the terms of AGPL without open sourcing their integrations too.

xyzzy_plugh1y ago

What evidence is there that they repackaged MongoDB? How did they "comply" with the AGPL? It seems like they reimplemented it which would be no AGPL licensed works are involved.

This sounds like a myth. There is no way AWS legal would allow providing access to an AGPL licensed work over the network.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse