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

[Jim Jagielski]

OSI exists to determine what is "open source" (as far as OSD compliance). It does not exist to determine or define "copyleft". It does not exist to "extend" copyleft. It does not exist, IMHO at least, to even *create* licenses. It is up to others to create fun names for licenses and license types, and lump them into various categories as their whims dictate. It's not up to OSI. OSI, basically, has ONE category: Is This An Open Source License, yes or no.

OSI is about Open Source.

> On Oct 18, 2018, at 4:28 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2018-10-18 15:10, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 9:44 PM, Eliot Horowitz <eliot at mongodb.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We think it is time for an extension of copyleft.
>>> 
>> 
>> If so, then this list and the OSI are NOT THE PLACE for
>> this type of discussion, IMHO.
>> 
>> The OSI is about determining whether a license abides by
>> the OSD or not, not about determining the extent, value or
>> viability of copyleft. As such, it should be abused in
>> such a way as to "sneak-around" those to whom copyleft is
>> of prime and vital importance in hopes of getting a
>> license approved which "redefines" or "extends" copyleft.
> 
> As the last person to propose a radical copyleft license to
> OSI, I agree with you, functionally.  Many knowledgeable
> participants post on license-review, but license-review is
> not the best or even a particularly good way of soliciting
> or receiving their input.  Not for the one giving, and not
> for the one receiving.
> 
> Neither is it a very good place to try and revise a license.
> My compliance with the published request to propose early
> and revise with feedback spawned complaints about revision
> control that outlived discussion of the license.   And came
> again to naught.
> 
> Substantively, I strongly disagree.  Copyleft is a fun name
> for a category of license condition.  It belongs to any
> particular organization no more than "public license" does.
> Those who prefer particular implementations---and their
> compromises---should play their hands, not claim house
> privilege to make newcomers play their game at their odds.
> 
> As for OSI, judging by track record, no organization has
> approved so many licenses expanding copyleft.  Whether we
> call those "copyleft" or "reciprocal" terms is a matter of
> terminology, or branding, not substance.  The substance is
> making "free for free software only", which is how these
> licenses are largely received and read until their
> vulnerabilities become widely known, mean what it says,
> despite changed legal and technical circumstances.  OSI has
> arguably done more to maintain and legitimize radical
> copyleft than any other organization.
> 
> Circa 2002, OSI was apparently eager for the job, and
> specifically for corporations dual licensing software.
> Those licenses remain on the books, though FSF rejected
> several of them.  When I ask, I do not hear about any
> appetite to recant the difference of opinion to mend the
> rift.  After all, those licenses were essential to bringing
> open source into corporations, starting with smaller ones
> where allies enjoyed more discretion.  It was in part on the
> basis of extending open source as a breeding ground for
> business models accessible to upstart firms that the first
> wave of firms came on board.  There is still a great
> business use case, too.
> 
> This is meta, but it's also directly responsive to Eliot's
> question about whether it's enough for _some_ valuable part
> of the community to want a license, or whether every part of
> the community has to sign off.  OSI's early welcome to
> upstart dual licensors contributed to its success
> proselytizing larger, incumbent firms.  Now incumbent
> software companies are well represented through OSI, and
> their views come through on this list.
> 
> The answer to Eliot's question that I've read in my own
> experience here is that the list must reach consensus---of
> whoever pays the time and attention toll to chime in---to
> even put the license on the board's agenda.  Insofar as
> large, established software companies must be part of that
> consensus, many will not approve stronger copyleft licenses,
> either for software freedom activists, or for their natural
> allies in copyleft, dual licensing upstarts.  The purpose of
> those licenses, for either part of their user base, is to
> defend their users' efforts against incumbent software
> companies, by the leverage of intellectual property.
> 
> Case in point, Mongo has drafted and applied a license with
> specific, but unnamed, competitors in mind.  Those
> competitors know who they are.  They're free to chime in
> here, and to block consensus.  That time and attention toll
> must pale in comparison to what they've spent reading into,
> and through, AGPL.
> 
> -- 
> Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org