[License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)
license-review at m.vtk.one
Sat Oct 20 00:55:48 UTC 2018
The proposed license puts a lot of limitations on a third-party software.
As we operate in examples, let’s consider the following:
Let’s assume a company A develops an Open Source backup software MBackup for MongoDB Community Edition, and the backup software licensed under AGPL license. The company A chose AGPL because this is an industry accepted and OSI approved license.
Now, company X (is not a cloud provider, but a simple website) uses MongoDB Community Edition (SSPL licensed) with MBackup (AGPL licensed). This is fully allowed under proposed license.
However, company Y (that provides MongoDB as a service) also uses MongoDB Community Edition (SSPL licensed) with MBackup (AGPL licensed). And you do not allow this scenario, as you require for company Y to have the infrastructure software to be SSPL.
This is a clear discrimination by the type of business and in a direct contradiction of OSI Criteria: “6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor”
But your license also violates “9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software”, as you prohibit the usage of the third-party software MBackup. You discriminate the software which is released under fully approved OSI license AGPL.
I propose the submitter to withdraw the proposed license until `violations 6 and 9 are addressed.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Eliot Horowitz wrote:
> SSPL does not violate OSD 6. It allows the Program to be used by
> anyone for any purpose. If section 13 is triggered, there is a
> copyleft condition that must be complied with. The SSPL is like many
> other open source licenses, whose terms will naturally apply
> differently to different groups of licensees. For example, most open
> source licenses apply different conditions to software distributors
> and software users -- not because the license discriminates, but
> because those licensees choose to do different things with the
> software. SSPL’s copyleft condition may require some users to release
> more software than others, but that is only because those users made
> different choices as to how to deploy the SSPL software. The license
> does not set facially different rules for any field of endeavor.
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:18 AM Stefano Zacchiroli <zack at upsilon.cc> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:03:02AM -0400, Eliot Horowitz wrote:
> > >
> > Heya, SSPL reads:
> > > If you make the functionality *of the Program or* a modified version
> > > available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service
> > > Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge,
> > > under the terms of this License.
> > in contrast, AGPL:
> > > if you *modify the Program*, your modified version must prominently
> > > offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer
> > > network
> > so SSPL triggers on mere use, rather than on modification (+ use). This
> > point hasn't seen much discussion in this thread yet, but it seems to me
> > to be both a major difference with the status quo and a potential
> > blocker in view of OSD §6 (or, more generally, Freedom 0).
> > This looks like a more significant differentiation point between AGPL
> > and SSPL, rather than the stated motivation that it is unclear what is
> > the reach of AGPL copyleft provision.
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Stefano Zacchiroli . zack at upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o
> > Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o
> > Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o .
> > « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
More information about the License-review