In 2021, Graylog ignited a firestorm in the open-source community by switching its core software license from the permissive Apache 2.0 to the restrictive Server Side Public License (SSPL). This move, designed to prevent large cloud providers like AWS and Google from profiting off Graylog’s code without contributing back, fundamentally altered the software’s openness. The SSPL requires that any entity offering the software as a service must also open-source their entire service stack—a condition the Open Source Initiative (OSI) rejects as incompatible with true open-source principles, classifying SSPL as ’source-available’ rather than open source. The change triggered widespread backlash, fracturing developer trust and threatening small businesses that relied on Graylog’s free model. Entrepreneurs like Sarah, who built IT consulting firms around Graylog, faced existential crises: either surrender proprietary tools or pay for costly commercial licenses. This shift mirrored broader industry trends, as companies like MongoDB and Elastic made similar moves, prompting AWS to fork Elasticsearch into OpenSearch under Apache 2.0. Graylog’s decision highlighted a growing tension between sustaining open-source innovation and protecting against exploitation by tech giants. While Graylog continues to offer a free version (Graylog Open) and commercial products with enhanced features, the licensing change has spurred demand for truly open alternatives and forced organizations to scrutinize software licenses more closely. The ripple effects include reduced community contributions, fears of vendor lock-in, and a fragmented ecosystem where ’open’ no longer guarantees freedom. Ultimately, Graylog’s story exemplifies the evolving challenge of balancing financial sustainability with the collaborative ethos of open source—a conflict that continues to shape the future of software development, influence startup viability, and impact the cost and accessibility of digital infrastructure for businesses of all sizes.