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

[Bruce Perens]

OK, I can see why that could possibly be read as "works *like *the program".

There is already a defined term, "public performance". It is problematic in
that the US Copyright title only defines that there is a controllable right
for public performance of certain kinds of media, not including software.
But I don't see why it can not be used in contractual language, which is
where we will always get in attempting to synthesize a public performance
right where the law provides none.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:48 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

>
> While we are at it, the use of "functionality" is extremely problematic.
> Since it is not a defined term, it must be read in its ordinary sense in
> connection with computers, namely the usual sense (not the technical sense)
> of "function".  A license that purports to control how you "make the
> functionality of the program" available to third parties would seem to try
> to prohibit you from providing *any* software with the same functionality
> as MongoDB.  That is massively wrong.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181018/0b6973b4/attachment.html>