I do think that when the shared code scope is limited correctly, this is a good faith offer. For example, if you offer my product under SSPL as a service, I wou

I do think that when the shared code scope is limited correctly, this is a good faith offer. For example, if you offer my product under SSPL as a service, I would expect that you share: - all your changes to the product - all infrastructure code you use to deploy the product for your customers - all billing code you use to bill for the product But I would not expect you to release code for e. g. services based on other products (open source or otherwise), or your whole billing stack, or your internal services you use for customer support for example. Just the code that you use with my particular product. Now, SSPL is a bad license for numerous reasons (many of the concerns in the OP article are valid!) and this is why I've decided against it on my project [1], but I think the basic premise of it is completely valid. [1]: https://lunni.dev/ https://lunni.dev/, licensed AGPL-3.0