[2Gkashmiri]

correct me if i am wrong but imo sspl is a superset of AGPL, because i have read somewhere that agpl fails if kept behind an api. you don't need to publish source and all that.

the problem with non-sspl licenses is, lets say with bsd, that you give the downstream developer the right to decide if your work is part of software which gives source to users when the concern of "Free software" is that end users MUST be given source.

when it comes to cloud providers, even if this agpl license is true, google already bans AGPL software but not aws but i'm not sure but that means they dictate to the end user with vendor lock-in and stuff.

anyways SSPL aims to accomodate even this loophole by making sure if you are a provider, you have to provide source code to ALL software you use. this means, for an end user you can't be forced into a small free software carrot but still subject to rest of closed source.

i'd say this is a win-win for end users, intermediaries and developers don't matter when it comes to freedoms of end users

[yessirwhatever]

In the words of Matthew Garrett "There are many AGPL projects where you literally can't pay someone money to avoid the AGPL. There are zero SSPL projects in the same position."

https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1354698533094318082

[teddyh]

I would assume that this is a good thing.

[remram]

"All rights reserved" is a subset of AGPL. We're just not sure how far from AGPL the SSPL actually fall, because it is worded ambiguously.

In practice the original claimed aim of the license does not matter that much.

Thankfully there are other licenses similar to AGPL, like BSL.