It seems that the new license (SSPL) is probably not open source because of (at least) field of use restrictions: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7522/sspl-and... https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l...
https://opensource.org/definition-annotated#6
That's the point of open source, and free software in a way as well. Copyleft licenses have restrictions, but as long as you follow those restrictions, you can build whatever you want using the software. SSPL, FSL, BUSL licenses outright prevent you from competing in certain commercial ways, no matter what.
Just because most business models don't want to comply with copyleft doesn't mean it's not open source - it just means it doesn't fit your business model.
There isn't an SPPL-licensed OS available, is there? Is that not included in "absolutely everything you use to run"? I actually don't know, I haven't tried to make sense of the license. Is there a boundary somehow that you are allowed to run it on a non-SSPL OS? Where is the boundary exactly, I might be using many other open source licensed (or even third-party proprietary licensed tools) in my total ops stack -- which of them don't have to be SPPL?
Some folks are working on terminology over here, if you're curious.
https://github.com/softwarecommons/softwarecommons.com/issue...
It's not that it's uncool, it's just not true and reflective of reality. There's a world of difference between a .zip on an FTP ("source available because GPL says it must be") and everything still happening in public on GitHub and everyone still being able to contribute if they want to. Both are technically "source available".
The non-ideological value of open source is exactly the commodification that the retreat to source available licensing seeks to end, along with downstream consequences of that commodification.
It is not a problem of terminology.
No, its not. SaaS has existed for more than 20 years and reselling FOSS has been something it has done as long as there has been FOSS to resell.
What's changed recently is people launching venture-funded startups centered on gaining popularity through the appeal of FOSS with initially no clear monetization plan or one centered on selling services that were essentially just the FOSS, hosted. That’s the new thing, and why there is so much energy going into trying to figure out how to retain the marketing appeal of FOSS with the new licenses that lack the value proposition of FOSS.
That isn't new either. What has changed is some have found what looks like a path to monetization that seems like it might actually work. 20 years ago they never found a path to monetization at all. You just forgot about the other failed ones because they never went anywhere (though the source code may still be out there).
Not from a single vendor everyone is already using (AWS, GCP, Azure).
> What's changed recently is people launching venture-funded startups centered on gaining popularity through the appeal of FOSS
Redis aren't a venture-funded startup.
> one centered on selling services that were essentially just the FOSS, hosted
Many companies tried open core and hosting, like InfluxData, and it still didn't work. It's a hard sell when the big cloud providers' services are right there, a click/tf resource away, with integrated billing just a line item you don't have to haggle over. Honestly the only one I can think of that is kinda working with that business model (but still losing money) is GitLab.
> That’s the new thing, and why there is so much energy going into trying to figure out how to retain the marketing appeal of FOSS with the new licenses that lack the value proposition of FOSS.
BSL/SSPL don't lack the value proposition of FOSS. You can still see the code, you can still contribute to it, you can still fork if it the company goes under or you disagree with their direction. The only thing you can't really do is compete with the company behind it, which most users actually don't care about and is hardly a part of the value prop.