What does the license mean for me?
Probably nothing. This is a very unrestrictive license.
You can write, distribute and do anything you want with any tests you build with this framework. You can extend it in any way you wish. You can run the tests on any CI you wish.
This license does not apply to any code written for use with this tool or any of the tests you write with it.
This license is exclusively about reserving the right to provide a paid service on top of the features of this tool - e.g. a web app to let your manager look at or edit your tests.
Why the dual license?
For the same reason Elastic Search did.
The EPL 2.0 is a less restrictive license, but the SSPL (used by Mongo) is a bit more widely known and may be approved in places that the EPL is not.
This license is inspired by the well publicized spat between Amazon and ElasticSearch. Amazon, in my opinion, acted as a parasite on ElasticSearch by providing a paid hosting service.
As a far larger and wealthier company with a huge customer base Amazon had a built in advantage that allowed them to squeeze ElasticSearch out of the market of selling hosted versions of its own software. As they have routinely used their size and wealth to crush competitors, the end game of this likely involved destroying Elastic the company which would result in ElasticSearch the open source project withering and dying.
Amazon, the same company that struggles to grant its workers the right to pee, unleashed a torrent of self righteous fury at ElasticSearch for changing their license to prevent this.
They then forked ElasticSearch, calling it "OpenSearch" and declared their commitment to maintaining it going forward.
The commitment, which largely involved hiring 6 people to copy ElasticSearch's innovations looked something like this:
ElasticSearch isn't open source! The OSI declared it "non free"!
The OSI's wealthy corporate sponsors probably prefer this.
Market power + unrestrictive license = profit!
For the company with market power, not the open source developer.
My company's lawyer won't approve this license
Lawyers are often overly risk averse and are sadly slow at keeping up with changes in the open source field.
I can still remember when Linux was routinely prohibited because it was GPL and the viral nature of the GPL was deemed "scary".
I have some comments / questions not covered here
Please, do contact me.