> No, there isn't. FOSS licenses makes devs complain because "cloud companies appropriate open source products"; SSPL license (or similar) makes devs complain because it's not FOSS (even if it doesn't affect them).
Yes, I do not see what is so bad about the SSPL. It does not affect anyone other than cloud companies. It is essentially like the GPL but stopping a workaround.
It does hinder competition and locks you in, doesn't it? Since you need a licence from the software owner to provide your own hosted solution, and they might give it to you at an huge price or not give it at all.
Say I had MongoDB hosted on some cloud provider before the change to SSPL. I can't keep getting support from the cloud provider for updates or at all, so I'd have to migrate to their MongoDB Atlas product or host it myself (which I wanted to avoid in the first place).
Then they could raise the price (almost) as much as they wanted, just slightly below the point where I'd consider migrating to another DBMS (engineering cost) or self-hosting (DBA cost), in any case affecting me.
Alternatively, had I chosen MySQL or Postgres, well established DBMS not built by startups with a single product that desperately need to make money, I could choose Azure, GCP, AWS or any other provider depending on my needs.
Yes, it hinders competition for cloud hosting in certain ways.
Someone could set up a separate hosting service for it as long as they made their supporting code FOSS too.
It also lets you self host, including on a cloud platform.
The rules for hosting SSPL software, are not very different from those for distributing GPL software. It certainly seems to be in the same spirit as someone offering software under GPL with a proprietary alternative.
What I do think is unfair is when there is an element of bait and switch.
> Alternatively, had I chosen MySQL or Postgres, well established DBMS not built by startups with a single product
> Someone could set up a separate hosting service for it as long as they made their supporting code FOSS too.
Isn't this more-or-less what the AGPL does? Allow hosting for others, but sharing the server-side code. I get that big providers aren't happy by this for multiple reasons, though
> The rules for hosting SSPL software, are not very different from those for distributing GPL software
They are in the way that they forbid you from competing with them. For a GPL program, I could build my own redistribution (see Linux distros consisting on packaging and distributing software made by others)
> That was how MySQL started, IIRC?
Actually, it seems so, but they used the GPL instead of BSD, and based their business on support and dual-licencing, and was later on bought by Sun/Oracle, being just one of their products and not their only product, like Redis or MongoDB.
> What I do think is unfair is when there is an element of bait and switch.
What's the bait? The expectation to get free development and support forever? The pre-switch Redis code is still BSD licensed, that can't be changed.
Additionally, using SSPL licensed code doesn't concretely change anything for essentially any end user/developer besides BigCos - which are free to use and hack Redis at will as before. As a matter of fact, almost all those who complained about the license change on HN, are actually not affected.
Yes, I do not see what is so bad about the SSPL. It does not affect anyone other than cloud companies. It is essentially like the GPL but stopping a workaround.