| > None of the proposed licenses significantly curtail the possibility of having internal deployments of software or linking against the software in commercial software. Actually... The Fair Source License (Sourcegraph, https://fair.io/) explicitly does restrict those things. The RSAL (Redis, https://redislabs.com/blog/redis-labs-modules-license-change...) kind of does, but only under some circumstances. > The only restriction is that the application cannot be a database, a caching engine, a stream processing engine, a search engine, an indexing engine or an ML/DL/AI serving engine. The Confluent Community License (https://www.confluent.io/blog/license-changes-confluent-plat...) only says you can't run it directly as a SaaS offering, which is better but I'm a bit uncertain where the line would be drawn in terms of product functionality. The Commons Clause (https://commonsclause.com/) explicitly prevents you from selling the software, including hosting, consulting, support, etc. As with the Confluent license it isn't entirely clear where the line is drawn in terms of product functionality. The SSPL (mongoDB, https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license...) is in fact an open source license as far as I'm concerned, but OSI hasn't (won't?) recognize it. |