> Granted, MongoDB eventually switched to a special SSPL license to add specific restrictions on Cloud Providers from distributing a service without contributin

> Granted, MongoDB eventually switched to a special SSPL license to add specific restrictions on Cloud Providers from distributing a service without contributing to the project, which isn’t OSI approved, but is open-source practically As an open source consumer (as well as author, but not as a business), I consider it "practically" a part of open source that I can choose to run open source software on any vendor or platform I want, not just ones who have a licensing deal with the software authors. This is a very practical matter. It may well be that you can't actually build a succesful business on actual open source. The arguments about how you can succeed with an open source business seem to be mostly based on making the source code _available_, with no need for it to be actually open source. It may be that "source-available" without actually being open source can be a viable business model in many more cases than actual open source. I think the sustainability/viabiilty of open source is indeed currently under question. But the difference between source-available software without an open source license, and actual open source licensed software, really does make practical difference to the consumer.