I reserve special hate for Commons Clause [0] too but SSPL is downright offensive.
A reminder that F/OSS works very well for a lot of reasons [1]. The number one of which is if you want to commodize your product's complement [2][3]. Don't be a knob and F/OSS your core product if you plan to make billions or whatever.
1. Avarice: They rode the FOSS wave and gained industry mindshare for a conveniently long time. Now, after making (well deserved) millions on the back of it, they turn to an absurd license to basically say, fuck you, looser, I need my billions.
2. Hypocrisy: Spinning the whole thing as "doubling down on Open" with a source-available license. One must be so delusional to call out "naysayers" as spreading FUD about SSPL when the fact remains that SSPL is a landmine.
3. Short-termism: It is all fun and games till Elasticsearch is wealthy and healthy. Once some PE firm takes over when they get pushed into a corner, I can see them doing Oracle-esque law suites even if it isn't their current intention.
If their core product was Elasticsearch, they could have SSPLd it from the start. I'd be curious to see where they'd have ended up then. I'd absolutely not have been upset in this scenario.
The current scenario is what we are in, lets see how it pans out.
I reserve special hate for Commons Clause [0] too but SSPL is downright offensive.
A reminder that F/OSS works very well for a lot of reasons [1]. The number one of which is if you want to commodize your product's complement [2][3]. Don't be a knob and F/OSS your core product if you plan to make billions or whatever.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17814386
[1] http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2004/12/16/the-economics-of-soft...
[2] https://www.gwern.net/Complement
[3] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/