[ghaff]

Just one last nuance I'll add to what the parent wrote.

It wasn't actually the intent of the AGPL to keep a cloud service from setting up a competitor to your on-prem software. Rather it was to address what some felt was a loophole in the GPL's treatment of copyleft. (Namely that operating software as a service isn't considered distribution in the eyes of the GPL and therefore a cloud provider could add some secret sauce to your open source software without contributing back to the commons.)

That said, as a practical matter it seems to be pretty effective because most cloud providers won't use AGPL software (and a lot of other companies won't either).

But, because it doesn't actually prevent a cloud provider from competing with you with your own software, there have been a few (non-open source according to the open source definition) licenses created that specifically bar this sort of use.

[bad416f1f5a2]

> But, because it doesn't actually prevent a cloud provider from competing with you with your own software, there have been a few (non-open source according to the open source definition) licenses created that specifically bar this sort of use.

Excellent note, and very accurate!

I can start a company that sells your AGPLv3 software tomorrow. I just have to comply with the terms & conditions. If I'm doing absolutely nothing but operating the software without change, I can satisfy the license by saying "git clone github.com/your/software", done.

Where things get murky is on the concept of linking/derivative works. If I operate a cloud service and make changes to your software to make it use my cloud systems efficiently, those changes have to be open-sourced under AGPLv3. Does that leak too much proprietary information about my systems? Very possibly. That might be enough to stop me. But if I keep going down that road, I end up risking a legal argument that our systems have become so tangled together that parts of my software fall under AGPLv3.

For most companies, this is simply not worth the risk. MongoDB took it one step further with the SSPL:

> you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. [...] “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.

This is basically the anti-AWS license: for AWS to run MongoDB proper, they'd need to expose source for huge amounts of their backplane. It's also not open source under almost anyone's definition.

[gqewogpdqa]

>This is basically the anti-AWS license: for AWS to run MongoDB proper, they'd need to expose source for huge amounts of their backplane.

Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have.

> It's also not open source under almost anyone's definition.

Enter the OSI. While it not be "Open Source" (note the capitals) I don't think anybody has the right to legislate the use of "open source" with lower case letters. A nit, but an important one - the capitals force us to realize that it's not a word in Webster's Dictionary. It's a proper noun definiton put forth and pushed by one organization. I can certainly say "...oracle is lying..." but if I say "...Oracle is lying...", I expect the black cars to drive up to my house pretty quickly.

[bad416f1f5a2]

> Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have.

True, that is an option. I’ll give anyone odds of it happening ;-)

> While it not be "Open Source" (note the capitals) I don't think anybody has the right to legislate the use of "open source" with lower case letters.

I think talking about “open source” is overloaded to uselessness. I really prefer to talk about licenses.

Even then the consensus I’ve heard from most people who care to think about software licensing is that the SSPL is essentially a weaponized license designed to strip freedoms. Lowercase open source, you be the judge.

[gqewogpdqa]

It's happened 15+ times before :-) I agree - talking about actual facts - i.e. licenses - is far better. I think SSPL (and AGPL) for that matter, protect freedoms - the freedoms of small companies to innovate and not have their work gobbled up and used by gorillas who have the power of distribution and platform. I don't know about the deals MongoDB has made with these 15+ cloud providers, but clearly it's working somehow. That said, maybe they would indeed not license to the three "biggies". Though it's unclear that those will be the three biggies for too much longer. Thanks for the clear comment back - sorry for being snarky in my note.

[bad416f1f5a2]

No snark perceived! It was a valuable post that added more context to a topic that deserves it. Far too many people perceive a "black and white", open source / closed source distinction where none exists.

> That said, maybe they would indeed not license to the three "biggies"

I think it's actually likely the other direction: I suspect Mongo has been working with all three to get it licensed as a service, and any hesitation is from their potential customers.

I know AWS the best. They want total control, and hate paying other people. They can also afford a long time horizon. They didn't buy Annapurna Labs to offer an alternative to Intel. They aren't going to want to license Mongo because that cuts into margin and costs them control.