[peterfarkas]

SSPL goes way beyond AGPL as it contains an additional clause called "Offering the Program as a Service". It is not defined at all what constitutes providing MongoDB as a service. How many layers are needed to abstract MongoDB in a way that it doesn't trigger this clause? There are no answers for that in the SSPL. It comes with an enormous amount of risk compared to AGPL. There is a good article from Dor Laor at ScyllaDB which explains this in detail [1].

Moreover, cloud providers are not limited to AWS, Azure and GCP. Smaller providers whom we talked to are not able to negotiate licensing terms with MongoDB the same way as how AWS could. For this reason, these providers are not able to provide MongoDB as a service. Yes, it's great for MongoDB that they were stopped from providing MongoDB for free, but now they can't provide the service at all. This limits competition and choices, and that is never in the favor of users.

[1]: https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodb...

[that_guy_iain]

AGPL is basically the same thing, except far more reaching. AGPL, to my understanding, makes it a requirement if you allow people to use the software via network levels. “Program as a Service” seems a lot more limited in scope.

All new licenses come with risk since the decisions can only be made via court decisions.

[aleksi]

> AGPL, to my understanding, makes it a requirement if you allow people to use the software via network levels.

AGPL requirements do not trigger if you don't modify the source code. The relevant text is in section 13:

> […] if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users […]

See also [1], [2], [3].

> “Program as a Service” seems a lot more limited in scope.

AGPL scope:

> The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.

Basically, the software itself and build scripts.

SSPL scope:

> “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.

As noted in another thread, that's not only beyond the scope of the software itself – it is beyond the scope you _can_ relicense and arguably beyond the scope of the copyright terms themselves.

[1] https://opensource.com/article/17/1/providing-corresponding-...

[2] https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-agp...

[3] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/650/do-i-have...

[that_guy_iain]

> As noted in another thread, that's not only beyond the scope of the software itself – it is beyond the scope you _can_ relicense and arguably beyond the scope of the copyright terms themselves.

This is not true. People who are saying this would have said this about GPL when it first came out.

[aleksi]

GPL applies to a single program: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-10/msg00...

[that_guy_iain]

Because the nature of software development and usage has changed massively since GPL was created. If GPL was created today it would most likely be like SSPL. The fact, GPL states "derivative work" must be released under a similar license shows to me that their intent was if you build anything where this is the core you must share that.

[PeterZaitsev]

Well, AGPL did no allow to create Monopoly in practice - Compose.io, ObjectRocket and others could offer alternatives to MongoDB Atlas without any permission.

This was benefit for users but obviously not something classical corporaton would enjoy

[that_guy_iain]

It was a benefit for classical corporations not users. These companies can still create alternatives. It’s just they’re forced to share how they did it. It’s that forcing of sharing which is at the heart of GPL.