[License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)

[Carlo Piana]

On 17/10/18 08:52, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Copyleft licenses are a different breed, and there is clever (and
> difficult-to-interpret) drafting in the OSD to allow copyleft licenses to
> qualify.  I think it's totally reasonable that OSI needs a higher standard
> for copylefts than other types of licenses.
>
> Furthermore, I think it is completely reasonable for the OSI to reject a
> license review request not necessarily for the content of the license, but
> on grounds that a public process of comment and discussion were not used to
> draft a license containing a major policy change in FOSS licensing.  The
> copyleft community has evolved from a single drafter vetting the drafts
> through a single law firm (as RMS did for the Emacs Public License, GPLv1
> and GPLV2), to a community process.  copyleft-next should be the standard,
> and license stewards of copyleft licenses should be required to explain
> why they *didn't* follow a process similar to copyleft-next's process as
> part of their application to OSI.
>
> I therefore suggest the OSI ask MongoDB to withdraw its submission, and ask
> MongoDB to go back and engage in a public comment and drafting process.

Not sure I agree or disagree with the need for public debate over a
license to qualify, I leave it to more thoughtful contributors, but I am
sympathetic to the concept. I also agree that copyleft licenses need a
higher drafting standard to be approved. Sloppy non-copyleft license can
do little harm, sloppy or not thought-through strong copyleft licenses
can be devastatingly bad.

I only notice that what MongoDB is seeking is a **perversion** of
copyleft, and it gives copyleft a bad name (cit).

Copyleft was conceived to preserve commons and avoid proprietarization.
Meanwhile, all drafters have been so far very careful not to be too
eager and "greedy", defining clear, although as expansive as reasonable,
boundaries to the reach of copyleft. Rules are there to be gamed, and
the "ASP loophole" was one of them. "TiVoization" was sort of another,
they have been tentatively fixed in further drafting iterations. It's a
fine game, but it has always been clear that the golden rule for the
scope of copyright was "derivativeness". Copyleft-next seems to me in
the same vein. And all of that for some good reasons.

With SSPL that boundary considerably blurs, to be replaced with a much
vaguer concept of "derivation of value" and other unclear rules that
seem to directly contradict other rules in the same legal text (e.g.
"mere aggregation"). Is that a good faith attempt to close an existing
(yes there still are) loophole with cloud? No, I read it as an attempt
to poison the wells of copyleft, including their own, detracting from
its viability in for-profit environments just to push the proprietary
licensing forward.

A for profit with a dual licensing offering is just too tainted to be
given the benefit of doubt. It is the same direction Commons Clause
takes, although they have had the decency of not calling it "open
source" and not to apply here.

My clients want to know where their obligations end. To have as clear as
possible boundaries. This license fall remarkably, strikingly short of that.

Finally, the FAQ. The FAQ are not part of the license. They are
immaterial, beside being belied by the very text of the license. They
can help, but they do not add to or detract from the license. A license
must be approved for its text, not for its context (I have expressed
this concept already WRT W3C), otherwise we will be submerged by badge
licenses that we should review in the context of their proponents and
our appraisal would be subject to changes of corporate policy or of
other unrelated and unapproved texts.

NO! The license must be self-contained and provide directly all the
safeguards, rights and obligations that are needed and sufficient to
comply with it. And those rules must be well drafted in an attempt to
reduce uncertainty.

I am totally in favour of outright rejection, without any second thought
given.

Yours aye!

Carlo