> What is it that changed from AGPL in SSPL that was absolutely needed?
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/8028
Big cloud players would put a thin layer on top and ignore the AGPL.
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/8028
Big cloud players would put a thin layer on top and ignore the AGPL.
> The license language is almost the same as the AGPL, with changes regarding the SAAS stuff. So, not OSI approved? Yes, but I have issues calling the SSPL a closed license.
What is it that changed from AGPL in SSPL that was absolutely needed? Why can't we have an AGPL 1.1 or 2.0 if it is a breaking change? I am not saying anyirez is wrong. I would like to learn why this was necessary, if at all.