> Edit: HN won't let me post. Heather Meeker wrote the SSPL for MongoDB, then she helped write this which is all about protecting against the SSPL. If you cite

> Edit: HN won't let me post. Heather Meeker wrote the SSPL for MongoDB, then she helped write this which is all about protecting against the SSPL. If you cite a person as the licensing expert for credibility when the thing is completely contradictory to what that person has written in the past should result in loss of credibility, not gaining it. Thanks for noting this, I did not know this. That said, I don’t think that’s an indicator that the ideas or legal stuff in the article cannot be trusted. Unless your claim is that it’s been backdoored somehow, what people have done in the past (or who they worked for) is not the sole indicator of their intentions. I would love to see your line of questioning put to her though. Mongo choosing to go the SSPL route was Mongo’s decision. > She's a lawyer for her client, wrapping up their chosen business model in novel legal bullshit to help sell it. Lawyers work for their clients and so do programmers. It’s perfectly reasonable to do closed source work and also work on open source. Are you implying that she’s Not everyone is Stallman, and that’s OK as long as there are enough Stallmans. “Wrapping up their business model in novel legal bullshit” is exactly what made copyleft work. Would you mind stating the parts of the biz model you hate? Is it just that you’d prefer if companies chose a straight dual-license approach for example(or something else)? Or a foundation?