[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.