I find the title and general feeling around this issue a bit exaggerated. SSPL license is indeed more restrictive but as far as I understand still allows internal usage of the software (without providing it externally "as a paid service").
I generally don't think everybody needs to push any point to the extreme (in this case, software licensing). For some a more restrictive license might be required (SSPL) while others can live with more open (BSD).
In the end, I would claim it is not "software vendors" that should drive most development, but rather "hackers" (passionate people that could potentially earn their living in different ways). Expecting "companies" to be the drivers of open source seems a bit idealistic today.
I agree. People seem to be angry that the project which received contributions under BSD changed to the project licensed under SSPL, but this is explicitly what you are doing when you contribute to BSD projects and all contributors should have known so.
If you don't like it never contribute to BSD projects, or projects requiring CLA. Contribute to GPL projects without CLA.
There's a misunderstanding. The main pain point in source available licenses is the conversion of the repository to "for your eyes only", i.e. not being able to take your old contribution (and its newer iterations) and apply it elsewhere.
Using it internally is not problem. Most developers and companies think about usage, but this is not the main point.
In short:
- BSD is about developer freedom.
- GPL is about user freedom.
- Source available is about setting company free while cuffing the user and blocking the developers.
People thought that BSD has the same freedom as GPL when it comes to derivations and openness guarantees, but get visibly upset when they discover that it isn't.
Many people told it over the years. BSD allows tons of shenanigans like this, but developers didn't want to listen, because BSD was more convenient for them on many fronts (i.e. Just grab and go and forget).
I generally don't think everybody needs to push any point to the extreme (in this case, software licensing). For some a more restrictive license might be required (SSPL) while others can live with more open (BSD).
In the end, I would claim it is not "software vendors" that should drive most development, but rather "hackers" (passionate people that could potentially earn their living in different ways). Expecting "companies" to be the drivers of open source seems a bit idealistic today.