MongoDB has just announced <https://www.mongodb.com/press/mongodb-issues-new-server-side-public-license-...> an immediate shift to its brand-new Server Side Public License (SSPL) <https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license>. This license is based on the AGPL, but adds some extra text to section 13 with, it is claimed, this effect: The SSPL builds on the spirit of the AGPL, but clarifies the condition for providing open source software as a service. The license retains all of the same freedoms that the open source community had with MongoDB under the AGPL: freedom to use, review, modify and redistribute the software. The only substantive change is an explicit condition that any organization attempting to exploit MongoDB as a service must open source the software that it uses to offer such service. The license itself is more explicit about what software must be released in this manner: "Service Source Code" means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. The affected code must not only be released, it must be made available under the SSPL. This language, thus, extends the reach of the license beyond any modifications that may have been made to MongoDB itself or to anything that could conceivably be considered a derivative work; https://lwn.net/Articles/768670/ L'articolo contiene un certo ammontare di FUD: l'obbligo di licenziare sotto SSPL si applica solo ai software che gli utenti di MongoDB sviluppano (e di cui dunque detengono il copyright) non a quelli che utilizzano (ad esempio il kernel Linux, citato impropriamente nel articolo). Contrariamente a quanto scritto questa licenza non sembra solo dettata da avidità, ma da un effettivo desiderio di diffondere il software libero. Personalmente non credo che colga il cuore del problema, ma trovo interessante che diverse persone inizino a discutere i limiti della reciprocità della GPL: va bene per chi crea cloni liberi di software proprietario, come il progetto GNU. Ma per chi vuole scivere software innovativo, non è abbastanza virale. Giacomo