> By using an SSPL project in your code, you are agreeing that if you provide an online service using that code then you will release not only that code but also the code for every supporting piece of software, all under the SSPL. It’s not a stretch to interpret the wording of the license as requiring users of the SSPL’d software therefore to release the code for everything straight down to the bare metal<p>This seems to be an issue of people not being able to figure out what the license actually would imply if challenged in court.<p>I think this is a fair argument, at that point, even a full on proprietary license where you ha e to pay to use ElasticSearch and Kibanna might be seems as less risky by business lawyers.<p>Now, I'm not a lawyer, but this makes me wonder how is "law" supposed to handle scenarios like this? Is law at a point that even reading the license terms that you agree with isn't good enough to know what you're agreeing too?<p>Isn't law supposed to be about agreeing to things ahead of time so there is no surprises? So what's failing here?