[i_am_jl]

  You may make production use of the Licensed Work, provided such use does not include offering the Licensed Work to third parties on a hosted or embedded basis which is competitive with HashiCorp's products.

Read benevolently it's a prohibition from spinning up a service based on HashiCorp's code and undercutting HashiCorp's pricing.

On the other hand, if I build a product with HashiCorp-owned BSL'd code, then HashiCorp releases/acquires a product that competes with mine, then my license is void.

[verdverm]

My understanding is that the aforementioned companies' licenses are to the same effect, so what is the difference?

[i_am_jl]

Redis is 3-clause BSD, BSD does not have a "your license is void if you sell a product that competes with us" clause. Redis does have enterprise products that are licensed in a manner similar to BSL, but Redis itself is not.

MongoDB and Elastic are SSPL. SSPL approaches the problem like the AGPL; it compels licensees who sell a service derived from the software to make available under the SSPL the source of all supporting tooling and software so that a user could spin up their own version of the service.

There's an argument to be made that SSPL is de facto "you can't compete with us" since it would be more challenging to make a competitive SaaS offering if your whole stack is source available. I don't disagree. However, as distasteful as SSPL is, at least it doesn't grant licensing to a product conditionally on the unknowable future product offerings of HashiCorp.

[verdverm]

thanks for the explanation, my understanding is that they are all after limiting competition in various ways, while still trying to maintain the mantle of open source

We are certainly in interesting times around the monetization / financial sustainability of open source

[bit_flipper]

SSPL has no provision even close to the reach of the "anti-competition" clause Hashicorp is using. While SSPL is not considered open source, it isn't that far off from the AGPL. The difference between SSPL and AGPL is that SSPL (1) is in effect regardless of modification of the service and (2) extends copy left virality to all programs which support running the service, including those that interact with the software over a network.

MongoDB, Elastic, etc. cannot stop you from running a competitor based on the terms of their licenses, they just ask that you publish the source code for whatever service you're running in its entirety (I acknowledge there are disagreements about how far "entirety" extends). The clause in Hashicorp's license actually revokes the right to use their software at all if you're a direct competitor.

OK, no one is going to build an open source competitor to Elastic or MongoDB because then you have no moat and your business will probably fail, I get it, but it's still possible to do without repercussion. It's not like the AGPL is that far off in terms of limitation, either, which is why you don't see many copyleft services run by large corporations unless they've been dual-licensed.