> what’s the alternative? A Slightly Less Strict Public License that would enable the developer of SLSPLed programs to accept contributions under the SLSPL wit

> what’s the alternative? A Slightly Less Strict Public License that would enable the developer of SLSPLed programs to accept contributions under the SLSPL without immediately being noncompliant themselves (something the SSPL is unsuited for due to the lack of SSPLed operating systems). I don't think the requirement to release supporting software as well is a bad idea, but when you make a new viral license, there needs to be some kind of upgrade path for existing open-source software. The AGPL has a special upgrade path from the GPL, and the SLSPL needs an upgrade path from the AGPL, the GPL and other licenses. So allow that supporting software for SLSPLed works is released under any OSI-approved license, not just the SLSPL. Then when you have a bog-standard Linux server with a mix of software using various licenses and you want to run an SLSPLed program on it, you can just publish the bog-standard software on your server under its existing licenses and you're done.