[2Gkashmiri]

i would suggest going through "open source vs foss" licensing philosphy. that said, i suppose SSPL does what you want. its not "open source" by definition because its not in the list but foss people would agree its the evolution of AGPL.

[tedivm]

I don't think FOSS people would agree on that at all.

[2Gkashmiri]

why? on the evolution of agpl or open source vs foss?

how is SSPL different from AGPL?

[josephcsible]

The AGPL requires that you make the program's source code available to anyone who uses it, even if they use it by accessing it remotely rather than by you giving them a copy of the binaries. The SSPL extends that requirement to include the source code of every other program at all involved with the system hosting the software. For example, if you use a closed-source program to back up the data on a server, you may not use that server to host any SSPL software for third parties.

[2Gkashmiri]

in your answer, where do you think i made a mistake?

the user says >I don't think FOSS people would agree on that at all.

what did i say wrong?

[josephcsible]

I don't think you made any mistake or said anything wrong in that post. I was answering your question "how is SSPL different from AGPL?".