[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.