407
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] F04118F@feddit.nl 0 points 1 month ago

That's how they're trying to sell it. But why did Elastic and Redis drop SSPL if it was so good, and why did OSI not accept it as open source? The answers are here but the TLDR is that SSPL is vague and, as a consequence, makes it risky to provide a service with the product, unless you are large enough to make a big lucrative deal with the owner of the product.

This stifles competition and innovation.

Case in point: Mongo DBAs are nearly non-existent outside California and managed MongoDB is much more expensive than managed PostgreSQL/MariaDB services, because it is only offered by 3 providers.

https://www.ssplisbad.com/

[-] Tja@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

Limiting the number of provider is exactly the point. You either pay the developers or make your code available.

I don't know about Elastic, but redis was accepting contributions so changing the license was very controversial, if not legally questionable. AFAIK mongodb, like sqlite, don't accept contributions.

Big lucrative deal? Just buy a license, like tens of thousands of others do, millions if we include other "code available" products that also offer licenses: red hat, Ubuntu, temporal, different Kafka versions, Postgres, MySQL, etc.

this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
407 points (98.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

27175 readers
1002 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS