I agree that they might have a legal right to do this, but it doesn't mean this is aligned with the interests of the general free software / open source communi

I agree that they might have a legal right to do this, but it doesn't mean this is aligned with the interests of the general free software / open source community and thus it is entirely their right to shun, criticise and disapprove of this move and this licence. Particularly so because they are (arguably) violating an implicit social contract it had with its contributors in the past. This might be a good thing in the end because it exposes a new downside to CLAs and might make people think twice before signing them in the future. > If the outside world wants more open source code, I don't see why they'd giving MongoDB any flak for this. All this license will do is result in more open-source code. After all, isn't that the point all along? It would be a good thing if we could reasonably expect the effect to be that companies might release more open source code as a result. Yet the licence is so vague and broad that the much more likely intention (and effect) is that other companies will be forced to buy the proprietary licence to avoid the impracticability of using code under SSPL. I also don't think this kind of overreach in what is required to be open sourced just because you're using a component X is acceptable.