The additional restrictions in the SSPL apply also to unmodified versions. This is very different from the AGPL, which does not impose any additional over the b

The additional restrictions in the SSPL apply also to unmodified versions. This is very different from the AGPL, which does not impose any additional over the burdens over the GPL if you use an unmodified version of the software, even if you use that to offer network services. This provides a very clear path to AGPL compliance for most users, certainly those who get their software from a GNU/Linux distribution. (I missed that aspect of the AGPL for quite some time, admittedly.) The SSPL, in contrast, applies to unmodified versions of the software. This means that even if you get SSPL software from someone who publishes the sources, you have to take additional steps for license compliance if you want to use the software. Given that the SSPL requires publishing things like the source code for NIC and network switch firmware (both are obviously required for offering your network service …), I just don't see how this license is useful besides being deceptive. The BSL with its typical field-of-use restrictions achieve the same thing in a much more direct manner.