You write GPL code so improvements flow back, then AWS wraps it in a managed service and the license never fires because nothing is distributed. Worked exactly as designed and still failed. Fontana's right that static permissions can't solve dynamic power problems. I'm less sure about his "capacities" framework though, it would need governance structures most projects can barely imagine.
Adoption is the problem. Most projects won't touch AGPL because it scares away corporate contributors, so you end up choosing between a license companies will use but can exploit, or one they'll just avoid. Closed the loophole only on paper imo.
You write GPL code so improvements flow back, then AWS wraps it in a managed service and the license never fires because nothing is distributed. Worked exactly as designed and still failed. Fontana's right that static permissions can't solve dynamic power problems. I'm less sure about his "capacities" framework though, it would need governance structures most projects can barely imagine.
What about AGPL?
Adoption is the problem. Most projects won't touch AGPL because it scares away corporate contributors, so you end up choosing between a license companies will use but can exploit, or one they'll just avoid. Closed the loophole only on paper imo.
So? If the goal was to attract corporations you'd release under a BSD license.
[dead]