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

[Bruce Perens]

Brendan, I concur with you that OSD number 6 and number 9 are not complied
with. However, some of your hypothetical cases are moot because of the
operating system and system libraries exception which they have copied from
the GNU family of licenses.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 19:27 Brendan Hickey <brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com>
wrote:

> While the question of copyright misuse is admittedly very interesting,
> it's getting away from a central question that Richard raised three days
> ago: Does this license satisfy OSD #9?
>
> That answer is a resounding no. Clause 13 applies to programs that are not
> derivative works of the licensed software. Moreover it appears so absurdly
> expansive that actually achieving compliance might be impossible in
> practice. As Vadim rightly point out the practical impact of this clause is
> discriminatory against competitors in the same field of endeavour, thereby
> running afoul of OSD #6.
>
> In the following scenarios what is the user required to distribute under
> the SSPL? (Assuming that clause 13 has attached in the first place.)
>
>    - Serving MongoDB on Debian.
>    - Serving MongoDB on OSX running Time Machine.
>    - Use Docker to deploy an image that serves MongoDB.
>    - Use Puppet to manage machines which are in turn used to serve
>    MongoDB.
>    - Monitor a binary build from SSPL licensed code with software written
>    in Java, using Java APIs.
>    - Regularly `shred` MongoDB logs for privacy purposes.
>    - Print the MongoDB source code to make a backup.
>
>
> Brendan
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:34 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/18/18 8:53 PM, VanL wrote:
>>
>> the entire purpose of the SSPL is to prevent competition to MongoDB by
>> copies that would otherwise be lawful ...
>>
>> Van, this is where you're losing me. What are the "lawful copies"? If the
>> licensee hasn't complied with the terms of the license, paragraph 13 in
>> particular, then they don't have lawful copies. You point seems circular to
>> me.
>>
>> If you're saying that paragraph 13 would not be construed as a condition,
>> then you're in contract territory - and I do agree with that your
>> impossibility argument will often be true. But then query whether the
>> licensee should be taking the license if they know they can't comply.
>> Wouldn't there a counterclaim for that? Fraudulent misrepresentation?
>>
>> Pam
>>
>> Pamela S. Chestek
>> Chestek Legal
>> PO Box 2492
>> Raleigh, NC 27602
>> +1 919-800-8033
>> pamela at chesteklegal.com
>> www.chesteklegal.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181019/12a3172b/attachment.html>