5

In source code for a project released by Amazon.com Inc., awslabs/amazon-redshift-utils, an "Open Source"-like license is found with questionable stipulations, particularly section 3.3:

3.3 Use Limitation. The Work and any derivative works thereof only may be used or intended for use with the web services, computing platforms or applications provided by Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates, including Amazon Web Services, Inc.

The included LICENSE.txt file appears to be very similar to other Open Source licenses, however it also seems that Amazon is trying to limit usage of any and all derivative works to be used only with their own paid software products and services.

Is this legal or enforceable that a company can release "free" software which is "locked-in" to that company and only to be used when it serves to increase the profit of said company?

The full text of the license may be found here and also here.

15

If Amazon writes the code, they can release it under any licence(s) they choose, including fully-free and fully-proprietary licences, or not release it at all.

The cognitive disconnect here is that you've looked at the licence, seen that it has a lot of the "dress and feel" of free licences, decided that the software must therefore be free, and are then surprised that there are limitations on the use of the software.

The error is in concluding that this is free software. The licence does not give all of the four freedoms; specifically, it does not give freedom one, the right to use the software for any purpose.

It isn't free software, no matter what you think it looks like.

  • 3
    Nor open source, for those who care. – vonbrand Mar 1 '16 at 19:36
  • Indeed. The open source is a buzzword that gets labeled to pretty much every code that is openly released. open source doesn't mean you are free to take it and use it. That's the reason we should be using Libre more often to describe free software. – Prahlad Yeri Mar 8 '16 at 18:05
  • @vonbrand Open source it is because its source code is openly available on Github. Its a separate matter that its not approved by FSF/OSI since it doesn't come under their definition of open source. – Prahlad Yeri Mar 8 '16 at 18:06
  • 2
    @PrahladYeri, let's keep our ducks in a row. "Open source" is defined by the Open Source Initiative. Legally, it has no claim on the term, but it is best to use the terms as most people understand them. This "you can only look at the source" is often called "Source Available" or something similar, and there are also licenses (e.g. by Microsoft and Amazon) that restrict the use of the code to run on a particular platform, or many others. None are really open for use. – vonbrand Mar 8 '16 at 18:11
  • @vonbrand Agreed, I personally acknowledge the OSI definition, but the laymen out there who define the English Language don't see it that way! For most of them, if the code is available somewhere it is open source. To bring the laymen on page, the terms Libre or FOSS should be as popularized than open source. – Prahlad Yeri Mar 8 '16 at 19:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.