SSPL: you have to share your source code to the Linux kernel if you sell Elasticsearch-as-a-service"
GPL: you have to share your source code to the Linux kernel if you release binaries
SSPL+GPL: you have to share your source code to the Linux kernel if you sell Elasticsearch-as-a-service or if you release binaries
As long as the source is duly published under the merged SSPL+GPL conditions above, anyone trying to bring a GPL case against Elasticsearch-SSPL-on-Linux-GPL may discover that their judge refuses to enforce the GPL's hostility clause, because the SSPL strengthens the intent of the GPL without weakening it in any respect. We'll never know until someone gets to a judge, though, but my armchair speculation bet is that the "can't combine this license" clause won't hold up when the combination increases the total amount of Copyleft in play without decreasing it in any regard. I hope someone takes this to court and doesn't settle, or else we'll never find out :)
(I'm not your lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc.)
AGPL is okay.
I'm not hiring a lawyer when I'm selecting a few tools to benchmark. I'm not using EC until I've had the license reviewed by a lawyer. Ergo, redis or similar.
By leaving it grey and a little open to intrepretation they know that AWS lawyers will have to advice AWS to avoid it because it might open them up to legal attack.
If this was AGPL, I'd agree with you. IANAL, but SSPL is so broad that it could be construed to cover the Linux kernel, which is a no-no. :(