SSPL license text doesn't set any limits on the scope for source release. Verbatim quote:
> “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.
Basically it is saying you need to release the source of every tiny bit in your stack and then some.
I think “including, without limitation, […]” applies to the breadth of components, not depth, right? I mean, I’m not a lawyer, but that seems to be what syntactic context and logic indicate… no?
If you disagree, could you indicate the relevant text?
Your interpretation ignores the sentence “all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the service source code”. That just means they need to be able to run the service. Not have the exact same stack.
Let's say you decided to run MongoDB as a service, and you are fine with releasing Service Source Code under SSPL. The problem is – you can't. You don't own the source code for your NAS and can't relicense it. Nothing in the text says, "relicense all you can, and then you are fine". Clause 13 puts requirements on software that are completely unrelated in terms of copyright.
> I am confused. If you use a custom storage system then you would have the code for it. No?
Nothing in the license text says that the storage system has to be custom.
> The idea you need to release code for the os, file system, network routers, etc is absurd.
I agree with you that this is absurd. But that's what the license text says.
I suggest you read section 13, not MongoDB's FAQs or other explanations of how it works. The actual legal tech is very different from what you seem to think it is.
Er, I could be wrong, but I think you’re missing the scope set in the first sentence:
If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the… SNIP …programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service…
I’m eliding for clarity, but the NAS doesn’t make the program available as a service. The code that accesses the file system on the NAS to offer your service? Probably need to release code that calls fread/fwrite/NtFileX in your infrastructure code.
I get that it sounds vague and everything, but the FAQ also clarifies none of this applies unless you’re competing and targeting third parties. If you’re one of the few companies who want to do that, your legal team can formalize the line of demarcation.
Apologies, I hate defending the SSPL, but I can’t think of any better way to stop the monopolistic and EEE practices against open source projects. If anyone has a better solution to protect the freedoms of open-source developers, please, please publish it!
No, full list is in the license, but it’s only those components that they provide MongoDB as a service to end users. Doesn’t penetrate OS abstractions AFAICT, but I’d check the license and/or consult an expert if starting a relevant business!
FWIW, just realized it doesn’t even apply if deployed internally (within an organization and/or subsidiaries)…
