[zokier]

The wording in sspl is awkward in its vagueness of its scope, specifically this clause:

> “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available

For example providing SSPL software running on AWS as a service is probably/possibly license infriging because you are not able to provide source code for all the stuff you are using.

In practice probably even the most well-intentioned service provider can easily be trapped by that clause.

[jrochkind1]

For instance, does it mean you can only run on an open source OS if you are providing it as a service, for instance? I guess not...?

Personally, as an open source user, I want to be able to pay whomever I want to host a product I'm using. The SPPL seems intended to prevent this. Like it's intended to prevent cloud providers from offering it as a serivce, if it didn't do so successfully under the exact terms, they'd change the terms to do so, because that's the goal. Whereas in fact as a user, I want the freedom to pay whomever I want to host it for me, if it can effectively only be self-hosted (whatever that means!) or hosted by officially licensed vendors, that's not what I'm looking for in open source, I don't want hosting-provider lock-in.

So, while we could legalistically look at the exact terms, I'd rather just have a license that is not designed to discourage/limit/prevent one of the things I want to do with the software, which is of course why we choose open source in the first place.

[rmbyrro]

You can still host mongoDB anywhere you'd like and manage it yourself. What they would like to prevent was AWS and the like offering "MongoDB as a Service", because that's how they make money and fund development of the product.

If you enjoy freedom in open source and avoid lock-in, you will probably be hosting Mongo on an EC2 instance, for example. SSPL provisions don't apply to that.

[jrochkind1]

I would like the freedom to choose to use MongoDB from a MongoDB as a service offering, not being limited to only certain licensed service-providers. That is the kind of freedom I choose open source for.

[zokier]

It would be better if the license straight up forbid offering it as saas instead of hiding that behind conditions that are practically impossible to comply with completely.

[PeterZaitsev]

This is not practical for many organizations which would want choice of vendors rather than do it inhouse or be hostage to MongoDB Inc.