This post refers to the Commons Clause and SSPL as patching "loopholes". Here's the reality: - The Commons Clause bans large categories of uses, including pro

This post refers to the Commons Clause and SSPL as patching "loopholes". Here's the reality: - The Commons Clause bans large categories of uses, including providing "consulting/support services", or selling any "product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software". - The SSPL requires users who want to "offer[] a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Software or modified version" to license all relevant "monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software" under the terms of the SSPL – which is likely impossible if that software is, say, licensed under the GPL. The Commons Clause is not meant to prohibit the listed activities entirely, but require people who want to do them to get a commercial license from the original developer. However, this fundamentally leaves the ability to fork the software at the mercy of that developer. If the developer refused to provide commercial licenses for the forked version, or just disappeared, the community could theoretically maintain the fork under the Commons Clause-adorned license, but they'd be stuck with software that nobody could provide "consulting/support services" for. You can argue that the definition of "open source" ought to be broader than what the OSI or FSF would permit; maybe "freedom zero" isn't essential, maybe broader-reaching copyleft rules are acceptable. Maybe. But the ability to fork is fundamental. "Open source" you can't fork doesn't even remotely deserve to be called that. That's not innovation in license terms; that's just taking proprietary software and calling it something else. As for the SSPL... I'm not sure whether the impractical/impossible redistribution requirements are meant to effectively achieve the same outcome as the Commons Clause – forcing users to get a commercial license – or if it was just poorly drafted. At best, it seems like the idea that people might actually take advantage of the license as written, and make derived works without paying in return for open sourcing the whole thing, as more of an afterthought compared to the commercial license route. Perhaps MongoDB will come up with an updated version of the license that addresses some of the concerns, but that remains to be seen. The broadness and vagueness of "monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software" makes it a bit hard to see the license as a good faith offer, but I could be wrong.