> "Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate."
I don't see how to reconcile this with the new section 13, which seems to say exactly the opposite. What does this section mean, now that section 13 was completely changed?
> it has now submitted the SSPL for approval from the Open Source Initiative
IANAL but I don't see how it satisfies part 9 of the OSI Definition, or the DFSG. As DannyBee already mentioned, it's also incompatible with other existing open-source licenses. Why do they want to continue calling it "open source"? It sounds like they really just want to be a proprietary database.
> For virtually all regular users who are currently using the community server, nothing changes because the changes to the license don’t apply to them.
Really? It's written in a way that sounds like it captures all users under the same umbrella as resellers. If I wrote a data analysis web app that happened to use MongoDB (as one of my previous employers did), isn't that a case of adding "user interfaces" (and "storage software and hosting software") for it, meaning I'd need to provide source code for "all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available"?
I can't find any license pricing info on the MongoDB webpage, but some googling turned up a whitepaper that puts MongoDB licensing at around $11,000 per server per year. That basically means MongoDB's own "cloud" services are the only game in town. ("No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die.")
That means there's a single provider of this API, and you can't afford to run your own server, so it's essentially cloud-only, and it might not be legally compatible with other open-source software you want to use anyway. That's a whole lot of risk you're asking me to take on. Is MongoDB so much better than any free database, for any new users, that it's worth this risk?