[phkahler]

Why did they create SSPL when AGPL already existed?

IMHO all use cases can probably be covered by MIT/BSD, GPL, LGPL, and AGPL. Everything else is license proliferation and adds confusion and problems sharing code between projects.

[infinity0]

https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license... "Why did you base the SSPL on GPL v3 instead of AGPL?"

[tsimionescu]

MongoDB was already AGPL, but that didn't suffice. Amazon simply took the free version of MongoDB, as is, deployed it on its systems in a scalable way, and sold that to customers. They gave the code for MongoDB away, per the terms of the AGPL.

Hence, the need for a new license.

However, they seem to have kept the deployment infrastructure as a trade secret, and since that didn't interact directly with MongoDB's interfaces, it șes that it really didn't come under the scope of the AGPL.

[klez]

Companies did that for years with Linux, Apache, MySQL etc., and noone got riled up enough to produce this mess.

I think another commenter got it right: this is a fuss created by commercial entities that wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

[msbarnett]

> Why did they create SSPL when AGPL already existed?

Because they were already using the AGPL, and it did precisely Nothing to stop Amazon from turning into a massive free-rider who undermined the very ability of the project to fund continued development of the project Amazon was free-riding on.

[jimktrains2]

But why should Amazon be prevented from running said software? "Because I don't like it" isn't a good reason.

[msbarnett]

They shouldn’t, per se. But if they’re not going to be good citizens by contributing back to the project they’re profiting off of, while simultaneously attacking and undermining the ability of the project to fund itself, that’s a massive Free Rider problem that in the long run ends in the loss of a lot of important Open Source projects.

We can attempt to solve this free rider problem, or we can shrug our shoulders and decide we’re just comfortable with a world with a lot of dead Open Source projects and a lot more proprietary software. But “the current situation is fine and sustainable” is head-in-sand thinking. This Bad Citizen behaviour is an existential threat to the long term prospects of Open Source.

[jimktrains2]

Isn't everyone who uses mongodb or Linux or any f/oss but doesn't contribute in kind or monetarily a bad citizen? If you license code under a f/oss license you have to accept that this will happen.

There is no "free rider" problem. There are companies competing and one of them out competing the other. Are you as vocal about every company who failed because they didn't have a good business plan?

Now, should companies (or anyone) who use f/oss contribute back in kind or monetarily? Yes, of course they should; no one is arguing that.

[galaxyLogic]

I agree. If it is free/permissive license then the point of such a license is that anybody can use it freely. Why does MongoDB not want Amazon to run it freely? Because MongoDB wants to make money.