[License-review] OSD #9 would not make SSPL OSD-incompliant

[Brendan Hickey]

Bruce,

While your intent is worth considering, we needn't fall into the trap of
originalism. The OSD as promulgated over the past twenty or so years
doesn't specify that the titles are merely descriptive. With the passage of
time so too passes any authorial privilege.

McCoy's understanding of the text as providing examples rather than
limitations hardly seems implausible. For my own part, I understood the OSD
headings as statements of principle with the text serving as dicta. In the
case of OSD #9, the text calls out mere aggregates while leaving out
non-derivative works.

In case anyone thinks I'm working backward from a desired outcome, it's
worth pointing out that Mongo's own SSPL FAQ on OSD #9. Rather raise the
defense of non-distribution, it relies on a coy misunderstanding of the
word "restriction." Why make a hard argument when an easy one is at hand?

Brendan


On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 15:30 Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> The title of each definition is a summary necessarily limited by its
> length. The definition is the meat, and unfortunately I did not write it in
> a way that would apply to software that is not distributed.
>
> I'm very sorry.
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *From:* License-review [mailto:
>> license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Perens
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:15 PM
>> *To:* License submissions for OSI review <
>> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>> *Subject:* [License-review] OSD #9 would not make SSPL OSD-incompliant
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> The OSD terms were not written for software-as-a-service. OSD #9 very
>> clearly states
>>
>>
>>
>> The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
>> *distributed* along with the licensed software. For example, the license
>> must not insist that all other programs *distributed on the same medium*
>> must be open-source software.
>>
>> Since software-as-a-service software is not distributed, OSD #9 doesn't
>> apply. Sorry. The document was written for another time and I could not
>> predict today's conditions.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>> Isn’t this OSD 9:  “License Must Not Restrict Other Software”?
>>
>> The part you quote seems to be explanatory of the definition, but not
>> necessarily limiting.  I’ve been drafting a mail to license-discuss on OSD
>> 9 and how I think it ought to be interpreted, but this seems to be an
>> important question: what is the **D* *part of the OSD.
>>
>> It also seems curious to me that you can put **more** restrictions on
>> software on non-distributed media than you can on distributed media, but
>> perhaps there is some history of that part of the OSD that I’m unaware of.
>> To me, the example text you have reproduced is written that way because it
>> inherently assumes Freedom Zero.
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
> Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder,
> Open Source Initiative
> President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom
> Initiative.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181023/d7ff951e/attachment-0001.html>