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

[Bruce Perens]

Yeah not an issue. It turns out that FSF gives permission to copy its
licenses as long as you remove the preamble.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 18:50 Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Did they ever answer your very first question?
>
> Namely whether they have permission to use GPL as the basis for the SSPL
> at all?
>
> If not then it’s simply DOA.
>
> I guess that also applies to 0BSD as well.  If there is no permission from
> the ISC to use the ISC license text as the basis for any variations then
> the naming is immaterial.
>
> Presumably that’s covered somewhere given how long it’s been around and
> may have been explicitly covered in an email I missed.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 19, 2018, at 7:44 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>
> I am waiting for the license drafter to respond constructively regarding
> fixing the obvious problems. I spoke with Mongo's lawyer, but that doesn't
> mean the lawyer will be directed to engage. Without that sort of engagement
> IMO rejection is inevitable.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 16:40 Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's been recommended/suggested that we defer discussion of this
>> particular license as it should be part of a larger discussion regarding
>> the expansion of copyleft.  Hopefully I characterized that correctly.
>>
>> Are we tabling discussing this license and moving to license-discuss or
>> just proceeding?  It seems like someone should clarify what the OSI board
>> would prefer to do in these kinds of circumstances (also rather rare).
>>
>> It would, however, be moderately unfair to the submitter to shift this to
>> license-discuss with no real guidance on when or if any decision should
>> emerge.  Presumably we shouldn't spend years on it but may want far more
>> than the recommended 60 days.  I also don't see how to evaluate SSPL
>> without discussions that are likely to end up far afield of the specifics
>> of the license itself.
>>
>> For me it's a bridge too far but there are potentially many licenses that
>> meet the OSD and would be valuable to a part of the Open Source community
>> that I would never likely want to use or advocate for.  Also, if the
>> assertion is that we should be evaluating SSPL adherence to the OSD based
>> on a free software perspective vs an open source perspective then reviewers
>> on this list should be made aware of that.  Until then I will view
>> submissions from an open source perspective.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:41 PM Simon Phipps <webmink at opensource.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This list is called license-review. It is for reviewing licenses. We are
>>> going to do that here. Please move all other discussions related to
>>> licensing to license-discuss.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>> --
>>> Simon Phipps*, President, The Open Source Initiative*
>>> www.opensource.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181019/f539e178/attachment-0001.html>