It's GPLv2 all again, yeah. I remember similar comments 20 years ago about GPLv2 code when used for libraries. And that's good, although in the end they came up with LGPL for that scenario.
Anyway I agree that the license is too generic and can use some more details but IMO it should basically cover all the automatism you explicitly create to manage the software you are selling access to. I mean, there is no need to publish the secret sauce for EC2 because it exists anyway and it's publicly available anyway.
To sum it up, I'm not against the spirit of the license but I agree the implementation should be better.
Anyway I agree that the license is too generic and can use some more details but IMO it should basically cover all the automatism you explicitly create to manage the software you are selling access to. I mean, there is no need to publish the secret sauce for EC2 because it exists anyway and it's publicly available anyway.
To sum it up, I'm not against the spirit of the license but I agree the implementation should be better.