I think people will take issue with this comment due to hating anything that is not open source, but I think that it rings true. > The author wrongfully believ

I think people will take issue with this comment due to hating anything that is not open source, but I think that it rings true. > The author wrongfully believes all SSPL licensed code would be “open source” otherwise. This is incorrect. SSPL is good compared to the default, which is closed source. The other alternative would be not really having enough funding to keep developing the software, especially if a larger org comes along and earns money from it and you get nothing. Surely we know that many open source projects are struggling: https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html And if you don't think about protecting your code or ideas, things like this will inevitably happen: https://keivan.io/the-day-appget-died/ https://keivan.io/the-day-appget-died/ If someone wants to have AGPL or SSPL for their software, that's okay. If I find myself in circumstances where I can't use their project or code because of this (e.g. closed source project for someone else, where that would be an issue), that's just what I'll have to deal with.