A few years ago (2018), the software package MongoDB, freely available including source code, was relicensed. The original license was the infamous AGPL, which required anybody offering modified MongoDB as a service to share the source code for those modifications with users. The new license, SSPL, is an untested nonce license which requires those offering MongoDB as a service to share the source code for the entire service.
Many commentators have speculated heavily on the question of whether AWS, 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. What evidence do we have? 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.
(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.)