open-source-software gpl
What public evidence suggests that AWS violated the AGPL by deploying MongoDB?
<p>A few years ago (2018), the software package <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MongoDB</a>, freely available including source code, was relicensed. The original license was the infamous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AGPL</a>, which required anybody offering modified MongoDB as a service to share the source code for those modifications with users. The new license, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SSPL</a>, is an untested nonce license which requires those offering MongoDB as a service to share the source code for the entire service.</p>
<p>Many commentators have speculated heavily on the question of whether <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AWS</a>, one of the largest resellers of MongoDB and MongoDB derivative services, violated the terms of the AGPL. Under the principle that fires usually have smoke, I would expect to see some evidence which corroborates this claim. <strong>What evidence do we have?</strong> I confess some motivated reasoning here: such commentary is generally meant to disparage the AGPL as an ineffective license which would not hold up in court, but I personally have known attorneys who take AGPL seriously and have had employers who forbid AGPL-licensed products in the workplace.</p>
<p>(By careful reading of site rules, I believe that this is appropriate for Law SE rather than Open Source SE. I am not seeking community guidance on licensing norms, but evidence which plausibly could be admitted in court.)</p>

<h2>Contracts (including licences) have the doctrine of privity</h2>
<p>Let's say you and I enter a contract and that third parties form the opinion that you have breached it. That doesn't matter. It only matters what I think.</p>
<p>I might think that you haven't breached it - I'm certainly not going to sue you for a breach that I don't think happened.</p>
<p>Or, I might think you breached it and I don't care - I'm not going to sue you.</p>
<p>Or, I think you breached it and I really care but I don't think I can prove the breach to the required standard - I won't sue here either.</p>
<p>Or, I can prove it but the damages I've suffered amount to $2.86 and a lawsuit will cost me $50,000.12 - I might sue you on principle but then I remember that suits on principle are what make lawyers rich and I'd rather be rich myself.</p>
<p>Or, I might have definitive proof that you broke it, I've suffered massive damage but my lawyer says &quot;I think the contract is unlawful because of X, don't go to court.&quot;</p>
<p>Assuming none of the above happens and I do sue you <strong>then</strong> I'll present some evidence.</p>
<p>Allegations cost nothing: proof is hard.</p>
