Maybe. However it's the wrong analogy. Open source licenses are just that--licenses that specify conditions for use of the software including running it, building on it, adapting it, etc.
As such open source licenses can impose a wide range of conditions for use. Patent detente is a common term in OSS licenses, which demonstrates that such licenses are not just another form of copyright. [0] If you violate the term(s) you lose the right to run the software and may be liable for fees under a different license structure. Companies end up paying for this sort of thing all the time.
There's no particular legal reason why you cannot impose the sort of conditions that MongoDB or Confluent have added to their licenses. We can argue whether they are good for particular communities, or whether they are wise for the companies involved. But my guess is that the terms will largely stand up in a court of law as long as the companies involved can demonstrate the terms are reasonable and they have copyrights on the code involved.
I suggested making them copyright licenses and contracts simultaneously. Anything copyright doesnt cover goes into the contract. More, cheaper lawyers should be able to understand it.
I think I read here one court already ruled the software licenses are both types of law in action. That's a start. :)
As such open source licenses can impose a wide range of conditions for use. Patent detente is a common term in OSS licenses, which demonstrates that such licenses are not just another form of copyright. [0] If you violate the term(s) you lose the right to run the software and may be liable for fees under a different license structure. Companies end up paying for this sort of thing all the time.
There's no particular legal reason why you cannot impose the sort of conditions that MongoDB or Confluent have added to their licenses. We can argue whether they are good for particular communities, or whether they are wise for the companies involved. But my guess is that the terms will largely stand up in a court of law as long as the companies involved can demonstrate the terms are reasonable and they have copyrights on the code involved.
[0] See for example article 3 of the Apache 2.0 license at https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.