This is the license text: https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license
A few days ago, Elasticsearch and Kibana were converted from Apache 2 to SSPL, and there has been a lot of criticism (for exmaple). The biggest problem with SSPL seems to be the fact that if software licensed under it is used for an online service, you have to open source everything on the server that falls under the broadly worded “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”, which some worry could be interpreted by courts as “everything installed on the server”. The fact that it’s not OSI approved (and unlikely to be) is also a point of concern.
The article I linked (IMO quite reasonably) state that Elastic is only using this license to make the free version of their software undesirable and to force more people to buy a commercial license, but that’s a demerit to the company and not necessarily to the license.
What does the “free software, not just open source” community think of this? Does a license like this go too far, or is this the next step in forcing the open sourcing of software? Would you personally ever use this license for your IP?
Thing is, it doesn’t mention it, and it says “without limitation” before listing off software examples
Because the text addresses exactly that. “all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service” implies direct level.
Anyways, you could ask them to design a simple environment which fits with the idea to be sure. I am sure that being the creators of the license will exist some way to contact them about it.
Here’s the thing, the ultimate meaning of the license isn’t up to the authors, it’s up to the courts, and they can interpret it however they want. This was mentioned in the article I linked, which mentions that even though the authors tried to debunk worries in a FAQ, not even they know how the license would be really be interpreted, and the author’s intentions are irrelevant to judges, only the license text itself matters.
But the authors of the license, in this case as well as mostly other, use to take into account the help of lawyers and/or experts who know how a license should be interpreted in a court.
I think is “expected” to work in the same way it seems to do. In the way you suggest it, I could be unsure of everything as the same text could be applied if I said I am going to do “whatever”.
This is a reason already to contact them directly to ensure it.