> So essentially, anyone is free to modify MongoDB. It’s only when you offer MongoDB as a commercial service that the conditions of the SSPL state that you must open source the entire service.
https://hub.packtpub.com/mongodb-withdraws-controversial-ser...
Is this a difference like GPLv2 and GPLv3? Does this means that AWS now must open internal service (probably not but I'm trying to be devil advocate)
Correct me if I'm wrong, AWS ES service still uses ES free licence but they've re-written the plugins so they won't use ES and pay ES fee?
With new licence, AWS won't be able to use ES as SaaS?
Non-elastic pull requests are merged, as I mentioned in [1].
Not an expert but usually F/OSS licenses are mainly about:
- Patent grants (either grants patent-use or doesn't)
- Copyleft (should modifications be open sourced. ex: AGPL is the strongest FOSS copyleft, whilst SSPL builds on it to make it even more stronger)
- Copyright (owners who are licensing the code)
- Warranty and Liability
- Terms of use (ex: FOSS licenses don't enforce restrictions on commercial use like CommonsClause does)