[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 71, Issue 61

[Gustavo G. Mármol]

 Dear all,

As you all may know well, open source as a global phenomenon is in the
interest of many people around the world. I am glad that OSI as a worldwide
organization has done possible the opportunity to open the discussions to
all who want to participate in this process. Despite the possible
community´s issues mentioned in the mailing list (i.e. lack of
community-oriented drafting process), I want to concentrate efforts in the
Mongo´s submission and its OSI conformant or not.

In first place, despite some of the commentators have expressed that a
rejection must be executed on the basis of the lack of public process and
quoting Bruce P., this OSI mailing list, would constitute the right place
to discuss the Mongo´s SSPL license submission: *“Extensions of copyleft
which fit within the OSD are certainly welcome here. IMO the server-side
license isn't there yet, but discussing how to get it there also fits. OSI
was created to promote the concept of Free Software to business people in a
way they would find palatable. OSI is, and has always been, a Free Software
organization. Free Software is what we do, period”*. (
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003699.html
). ("*The OSI should now adopt a new requirement for license approval —
namely, that licenses without a community-oriented drafting process should
be rejected for the meta-reason of “non-transparent drafting”, regardless
of their actual text. *(
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/16/mongodb-copyleft-drafting/)
and *"Furthermore,
I think it is completely reasonable for the OSI to reject a license review
request not necessarily for the content of the license, but on grounds that
a public process of comment and discussion were not used to draft a license
containing a major policy change in FOSS licensing.
(http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003632.html)
<http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003632.html>
*
In the second place, a recap of comments provided and my thoughts:

*1.* *SSPL based on GPL v3 copyright text license:* It was mentioned that
FSF gave permission to copy its licenses as long as Mongo remove the
preamble; so I guess that this point should be removed as "an issue".

*2.** Copyright law Misuse*: It was stated by Heather Meeker, Mongo´s
Counsel

*"Copyright misuse is an equitable defense against infringement claims. It
has been acknowledged in several US circuits but not all of them, and it is
not often successful.  In almost all cases where courts declined to enforce
a copyright license violation due to copyright misuse, the misuse consisted
of anticompetitive behavior similar to actions that would compose antitrust
liability... This is not a general rule that imposing any license condition
not directly relating to copyright is unenforceable. "We considered this
issue prior to submitting the license for review.  It is a largely
theoretical defense, and it is not clear that the existence of a possible
defense to license terms is a reason to reject a license.  While a clever
defendant might raise such a defense, that does not mean that the license
is prima facie unenforceable, or that this discussion should create a
roadmap for bringing such a defense" "Sharing of source code is just not an
anticompetitive practice.  The SSPL imposes no restrictions on the use of
the software and requires licensee to make no covenants limiting the
licensee's right to conduct business" "If commentators on this list are
advancing the position that SSPL should not be approved because it is prima
facie copyright misuse, they should show a clear basis in law for their
assertion.  MongoDB should not have to prove that it is an impossible
defense to raise -- no one could ever prove that for an equitable defense.
The question here is not whether copyright misuse may theoretically someday
be broadened to limit the enforceability of licenses like the SSPL.  It is
whether such a doctrine exists today, based on current case law applying to
the facts of reported cases":  *I have not seen from the comments provided
on the list that the SSPL should not be approved because of prima facie
copyright misuse, and I have not further comments from my side.

*3. **#6**OSD*, Mongo have stated: "that SSPL does not violate OSD 6 saying
that: *The SSPL does not draw a distinction between paying and non-paying
users. The copyleft condition of section 13 is triggered when the
functionality of the licensed program is made available to third parties as
a service, regardless of whether the licensee charges for that service. In
addition, if the copyleft condition of section 13 is triggered, the Service
Source Code must be provided to everyone at no charge, not just the users
of that service  **"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.* (
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003743.html)
I believe the comment provided above explain plain the Mongo´s view
regarding #6 OSD, and I concur with the same.

4. *#9OSD*? It was mentioned that the OSD Terms were not written for
software-as-a service.

Quoting Bruce P. "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.
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003750.html
<http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003750.html>
“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”.
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003752.html
"Sure
it's intentional. And it is not a bad thing for creators of Open Source
software to be protected from abuses that are enabled by the SaaS paradigm
which did not exist for a paradigm based on the physical distribution of
software. *The question is how far to reach*. OSD #6 and #9 set those
boundaries and I'm neither convinced that it's good to exceed them nor even
that we *can* in a license that can be enforced.
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003705.html
<http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003705.html>

In this regards Mongo has stated, "For example, the license must not insist
that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source
software."  We think our license is consistent with this element as it is
written. *First, the Server Side Public License does not place any
restrictions on the use of any software, only conditions*. Second, OSI
itself says, “Yes, the GPL v2 and v3 are conformant with this requirement.
Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a
single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.”(
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated ) But the converse is not necessarily
true: if software is not “linked” it does not follow that a source code
sharing condition violates the definition.

Despite the Mongo´explanation, I do agree that SSPL cannot conform the #9
OSD for the following reason: Not sure if under US law there are
differences between the legal semantic between "restriction" or
"conditions", probably the answer would be yes, taking into account what
Mongo stated. But in my Jurisdiction (Argentina) a "condition can operate
as a restriction or prohibition" when the condition imposed act a "sine qua
non-condition" of the obligation. In this case, quite frankly I am not
seeing any differences, apologies.  Second, Clause 13 applies to programs
that are not derivative works of the licensed software and what triggers
the source code´s obligation under SSPL is to *"**offer SSPL software as a
service"*, therefore  you have to make available not only the *software
source code and modifications, if any, but also the source code of the
applications used to run the service* regardless how all of these
components are connected and how they are combined conforming or not a
single work or a merely distribution. *(A company that offers a publicly
available MongoDB as a service must open source the software it uses to
offer such service, including the management software, user interfaces,
application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software,
backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a
user could run an instance of the service using the source code made
available)  *So, I guess that the only manner would be one of the options
proposed by Bruce P., to fix OSD#9, but mostly because as was stated the
OSD terms were not written for software as a service.
Gustavo G. Marmol Alioto.

El jue., 25 oct. 2018 a las 18:56, <
license-review-request at lists.opensource.org> escribió:

> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
>         license-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: OSD #9 would not make SSPL OSD-incompliant (Josh Berkus)
>    2. Re: License Ragnar?k (Lawrence Rosen)
>    3. Re: Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)
>       (Eliot Horowitz)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:59:44 -0700
> From: Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
>         <license-review at lists.opensource.org>,  Bruce Perens
>         <bruce at perens.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] OSD #9 would not make SSPL
>         OSD-incompliant
> Message-ID: <d4e5fb42-23ae-28ae-4caf-f55cb198adee at berkus.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On 10/24/2018 11:16 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > I don't really see that this is discussion of SSPL. Please move it to
> > the discussion list instead of license review.
>
> Huh?  It's *entirely* a discussion of whether or not the SSPL violates
> OSD9.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:28:25 -0700
> From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> To: <License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>, "'License submissions for
>         OSI review'" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License Ragnar?k
> Message-ID: <0c2201d46c88$26d76770$74863650$@rosenlaw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"
>
> VM Brasseur requested:
> > Please move this conversation to license-discuss.
>
> I will comply. But I don't like it.
>
> (1) Mostly the same people are on both lists. What do we accomplish by
> this move other than splitting the important discussion over two archives?
>
> (2) The suggestion that anyone can review a proposed license without
> referring to and discussing other licenses or the OSD is unreasonable. We
> live in an ecosystem. Even history is relevant.
>
> /Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VM Brasseur (OSI) <vmbrasseur at opensource.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:03 PM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; License submissions for OSI review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>; License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License Ragnar?k
>
> Please move this conversation to license-discuss.
> (a reply should do it, since I set the reply-to accordingly)
>
> Thank you,
>
> --V
>
> > On 24 Oct 2018, at 18:59, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > Larry Rosen asked:
> > > > And you should define "license Ragnar?k."
> >
> > Josh Berkus answered:
> > > A state of universal F.U.D. in which nobody can produce or use any
> open source software because nobody can figure out how to do so without
> conflicting with someone's license.
> >
> > You are misrepresenting open source licenses. ALL open source software
> can be used. It can also be copied. Derivative works can be created. Those
> works can be distributed to the public. Its source code is available. This
> is true for EVERY OPEN SOURCE LICENSE! You are quoting a universal F.U.D.
> that open source licenses are in conflict. NOT FOR THOSE PURPOSES!
> >
> > Yes, open source licenses are often incompatible for the creation of
> merged derivative works. But it is a gross misrepresentation to claim that
> "nobody can figure out how to do so." It is done around the world by
> developers, with care. True, there are some companies that are afraid of
> specific wording of certain open source licenses that may create risks to
> their "corresponding source" or to their "proprietary derivative works."
> Google/Alphabet is an example of a large company that avoids
> network-copyleft licenses like the plague, giving up those FOSS free
> copyrights listed above rather than risk the other license terms and
> conditions. Even then, dual licensing often allows work-arounds for those
> companies and profits for developers.
> >
> > Please stop crying about imaginary F.U.D. There are legitimate legal
> reasons to read the terms of open source licenses carefully, but you
> exaggerate their incompatibilities and conflicts.
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:55:08 -0400
> From: Eliot Horowitz <eliot at mongodb.com>
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License,
>         Version 1 (SSPL v1)
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAJ6sj3dsZJnABSROVxjBpAfn400-Mw_vA2eHfEJFwePUMzSXCQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Thanks to everyone for their consideration of our submission of the
> SSPL.  We wanted to take the opportunity to summarize the main
> substantive issues raised so far relating to the license, and our
> responses.
>
> Issues list
>
> [Compliance with OSD 6.]  OSD 6 requires that a license must not
> discriminate against fields of endeavor.  There is no express market
> or field of use restriction in SSPL, so the comments focused on how
> licensees in a particular field -- cloud services -- would need to
> take more steps to comply.  Our response is that any difference in
> effect was de facto rather than de jure: the rules are the same, but
> the effect might be different depending on the licensee?s activity.
>
> This is also true of other OSD licenses, including GPL and AGPL. For
> example, under AGPL, two licensees in different markets might need to
> comply in different ways.  Take for example some AGPL software for
> data analysis.  Running that software online in most fields of
> endeavor works fine.  So, licensee G (for general) makes only a few
> configuration changes, integrates the software with a standard
> computing stack, and runs the software, with no need to share any
> source code.   But one licensee E wants to use the software in edge
> computing, and therefore has to integrate the software with smaller,
> lower level or real time systems -- and in doing so has to make some
> changes in order to integrate the software into a different computing
> stack.  Licensees E and G must comply differently because each has its
> own needs in its field of endeavor.  Licensees E and G have different
> software environments that may or may not be compatible with AGPL.
>
> [Compatibility with other licenses.]  Questions were raised about the
> compatibility of the SSPL with other licenses.  Some correctly
> observed that we removed the carve-out in GPL Section 13 that allowed
> related software to be made available under AGPL.  Our response is
> that all copyleft licenses are incompatible unless they specifically
> allow multi-licensing under the terms of other copyleft licenses.  We
> are considering whether we can add a compatibility provision without
> undermining Section 13.
>
> [OSD9, Scope of Copyleft and Practicality of Compliance.]   The
> discussion on OSD9 has been mixed, and several have observed that OSD9
> does not translate explicitly to software services. Therefore, the
> discussion on OSD9 largely coincides with other issues summarized
> here, such as compatibility, practicality, and scope of copyleft. Some
> have raised questions about how to interpret the scope of copyleft in
> SSPL. Some have also posited that the scope of copyleft is impossible
> or impractical to comply with, and we think that turns on the meaning
> of Section 13. We do not view Section 13 as requiring delivery of the
> entire computing stack.  However, drawing a precise line between the
> whole stack and a subset is difficult without making the license
> specific to one Program. We will consider whether there are ways to
> clarify this in the the language of the license.
>
> Section 13 requires users to provide ?Service Source Code,? which
> means the ?Corresponding Source for the Program ...and... for all
> programs that you use to make the Program ... available as a service.?
>  We did not change the definition of ?Corresponding Source? from the
> language in GPL3.  Therefore, any limitations on that definition that
> apply to GPL3 or AGPL3 also apply in SSPL -- including the limitations
> that obviate the need to disclose System Libraries or ?general-purpose
> tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified
> in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.?
> The exceptions here are fairly complex to parse, but are inherited
> from the GPL.
>
> [Breadth of patent grant.]  Some commentators have noted the breadth
> of patent licenses that must be granted.  Because Service Source Code
> is broad, and it must be made available under SSPL, the ?essential
> patent claims? licensed under Section 11 will be broad as well.  Our
> response is that while this is true on a practical level, SSPL follows
> the same rule in GPL3; only the scope of copyleft, and not the scope
> of the patent grants in Section 11, have been changed.
> Copyright misuse.  A few commentators have advanced the theory that
> the SSPL will be unenforceable due to the availability of a copyright
> misuse defense.  As this is an equitable defense, we cannot prove that
> it would be an impossible defense to raise in an infringement suit to
> enforce the SSPL. But there is no basis in existing reported law to
> conclude that this defense is likely to be successful.  Copyright
> misuse is a relatively new doctrine that has not been enunciated
> uniformly by US courts, and even where it has, usually applies to
> other kinds of misuse -- notably imposing anti-competitive covenants
> on the licensee, such as restrictions against developing competing
> products -- whereas source code sharing is generally competitive
> rather than anti-competitive.
>
> [?Mere use? conditions.]  Some comments were made that conditions
> cannot be applied to ?mere use? of the software.  These comments
> mostly seem to overlap with the comments on OSD6, OSD9 and misuse.
> But to the extent they do not, there is nothing in the OSD about this,
> and various OSD licenses impose conditions on use in the absence of
> distribution, so if this is a requirement for approval, we would like
> to see a clearer articulation of that requirement.
>
> -Eliot
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:44 PM Eliot Horowitz <eliot at mongodb.com> wrote:
> >
> > First, I want to thank everyone for their responses, even those who
> > strongly disagree with our point of view. I have tried to answer most
> > of the questions in this one response, if I have overlooked something
> > or am doing something against etiquette, please let me know.
> >
> > Our intention is absolutely to have a conversation with this community
> > and we will carefully consider changes to the license that may be
> > suggested in these discussions. Our hope is that by building on an
> > existing license that was the subject of extensive work and
> > discussion, less review will be needed. We understand your concern
> > with applying the license to the code before having gone through this
> > process. Unfortunately it was necessary for us as a public company to
> > do so.
> >
> > We think it is time for an extension of copyleft.
> >
> > I think we can all agree that the GPL is not intended to be used by
> > proprietary libraries. When you link to a GPL'd library, copyleft
> > applies to your entire program. This is how many people today
> > understand the applicability of the GPL. This made a lot of sense 30
> > years ago, when GPL was first written, and has been beneficial to the
> > community. In the modern era, however, very few programs are actually
> > linked, in the sense of a programmatic link at build or compile time.
> > Most modern applications are constructed by combining components as
> > services which talk over the network via structured APIs. So we
> > believe that the nature of the copyleft must evolve for the modern
> > world. In the SSPL, we believe the concept of copyleft ought to apply
> > to the pieces that make the original program run, but not everything
> > else that touches it.
> >
> > An example might be useful. libmysqlclient is a GPL?d library file,
> > and therefore copyleft provisions of the GPL apply to any program that
> > links to libmysqlclient. The mysql command line interpreter is one
> > such program, and it, too, is a GPL?d program. If someone wrapped the
> > mysql command line in a network service (say, a trivial bidirectional
> > proxy that ?shelled out? to mysql), nothing in the GPL causes copyleft
> > provisions to apply in a way that provides benefit to the community.
> >
> > This is the sort of loophole we have understood that the AGPL was
> > intended to address, namely, to ensure that some copyleft provisions
> > applicable to software will be meaningful in the case of software
> > provided as a service. Unfortunately, we believe there?s ambiguity in
> > the AGPL sufficient to easily sidestep its copyleft provisions via
> > architectural considerations.
> >
> > For example, if I have an AGPL key value store library and I combine
> > it with a network library and a management UI, then the copyleft
> > provisions of the AGPL apply to this use of the network library and
> > the management UI, because of linkage. However, if someone splits out
> > the management UI to a separate component that only interacts with the
> > combined key-value store and network library over a socket or other
> > IPC mechanism, it is unclear whether existing licenses? copyleft
> > provisions apply to that split-out management UI. For a program that
> > is used only as a network service, we want to be sure that all
> > components that make up the service, e.g. management and backup, are
> > included in the scope copyleft provision of the SSPL.
> >
> > In short, we believe that in today?s world, linking has been
> > superseded by the provision of programs as services and the connection
> > of programs over networks as the main form of program combination. It
> > is unclear whether existing copyleft licenses clearly apply to this
> > form of program combination, and we intend the SSPL to be an option
> > for developers to address this uncertainty.
> >
> > It?s clear from some of the responses on this list that some believe
> > copyleft should not be extended this far.  But we want the discussion
> > to be clear: Is this because doing so is impractical, or because it is
> > not what all communities want from a normative viewpoint?  If the
> > objection is practicality, we can explain more about how we think our
> > software could be deployed in the real world.  Although we do not
> > intend the SSPL to be specific to our software, and hope that others
> > will adopt it, we can?t comment on all potential applications of the
> > license to other software.
> >
> > If it is not what all communities want, then is it enough that some
> > do?  We expect that others will adopt our license if it is approved
> > and we want them to have the chance to do that.
> >
> > With respect to compatibility, we did consider ways in which to make
> > the SPSS compatible with other copyleft open source licenses when
> > drafting. However there does not appear to be an obvious mechanism to
> > achieve compatibility without completely undermining section 13 of the
> > SSPL. We also observe that many OSI-approved licenses are mutually
> > incompatible, and while that's not a desirable state, it is sometimes
> > unavoidable.
> >
> > We are not intending to drive all users to a commercial license. In
> > fact, by limiting the applicability of section 13 to offering the
> > functionality of the licensed software as a third party service, we
> > are hoping the SSPL will be less scary than the AGPL for those who use
> > SSPL software for other types of SaaS applications. For our software
> > in particular, this is consistent with our prior guidance that
> > applications interfacing through our Apache 2 licensed drivers are not
> > subject to the copyleft provisions of our license. If there is
> > ambiguity on this in the license, we would consider suggestions on
> > ways to clarify.
> >
> > -Eliot
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:03 AM Eliot Horowitz <eliot at mongodb.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > This license is being submitted for approval by its steward, MongoDB,
> Inc.
> > >
> > > Rationale: Clearly state rationale for a new license
> > >
> > > Today, Affero GPL 3.0 uses the broadest scope of copyleft, among the
> > > commonly used open source licenses.  MongoDB has been making its
> > > database software available under AGPL for many years now. AGPL was
> > > written to close the ?SaaS loophole? by requiring those offering
> > > software as a service to make source code available. However, for some
> > > kinds of software that is popular for cloud deployment, AGPL has not
> > > resulted in sufficient legal incentives for some of the largest users
> > > of infrastructure software, such as international cloud providers, to
> > > participate in the community.   Many open source developers are
> > > struggling with a similar reality, and some of our competitors have
> > > moved to proprietary licensing models. The alternative, to be blunt,
> > > is for us to be that last standing unpaid open source database
> > > developer for cloud providers, who sell access to our software for
> > > significant fees, but may not adequately contribute back to our
> > > community. Faced with the choice of moving to a proprietary model by
> > > applying licensing restrictions to our software, we prefer instead to
> > > continue using the copyleft model to create a workable incentive for
> > > cloud providers to share with the rest of the community.
> > >
> > > The Remote Network Interaction provision of AGPL has not provided
> > > enough incentive to change the behavior of cloud providers for several
> > > reasons:
> > >
> > > ?        It is not clear that it extends to software that controls the
> > > functionality of the database software, such as management,
> > > automation, monitoring, storage and hosting software.
> > >
> > > ?        It only applies if the software is modified, and the
> > > definition of a modification references back to copyright principles
> > > that are not settled law.
> > >
> > > We have addressed each of these concerns in the Server Side Public
> > > License, by (i) clarifying that the copyleft obligation applies to
> > > those who make the functionality of the software available to third
> > > parties, (ii) expressly including management, automation, monitoring,
> > > storage and hosting software that is integrated with the functionality
> > > of the database software, and (iii) removing the modification
> > > requirement.
> > >
> > >
> > > Distinguish: Compare to and contrast with the most similar
> > > OSI-approved license(s)
> > >
> > > This license is based on GPL 3.0, with the addition of a new Section
> > > 13 (Offering the Program as a Service) and other minor conforming
> > > changes.  The text of the new Section 13 appears below, and we have
> > > submitted the entire document in plain text as well.
> > >
> > > ?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. Making the functionality of the
> > > Program or modified version available to third parties as a service
> > > includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with
> > > the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through
> > > a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or
> > > primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version,
> > > or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose
> > > of the Software or modified version.
> > >
> > > ?Service Source Code? means the Corresponding Source for the Program
> > > or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs
> > > that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a
> > > service, including, without limitation, management software, user
> > > interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software,
> > > monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting
> > > software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service
> > > using the Service Source Code you make available.?
> > >
> > > Legal review: Describe any legal review the license has been through,
> > > and provide results of any legal analysis if available.
> > >
> > > This new clause for the license was drafted with input from the
> > > business and legal team at MongoDB, Inc., with assistance from outside
> > > counsel Heather Meeker, and with input from certain outside community
> > > members.  Its drafting has been the subject of significant internal
> > > discussion, including as to its compliance with the requirements of
> > > the Open Source Definition, and the efficacy of its extension of the
> > > limits of copyleft.
> > >
> > > We expect certain issues to arise in the discussion of the Server Side
> > > Public License, and we have set out our thoughts on them below.
> > >
> > > Open Source Definition item 9. License Must Not Restrict Other
> > > Software.  This item of the OSD states that 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."  We think our license is consistent with this element as it
> > > is written. First, the Server Side Public License does not place any
> > > restrictions on the use of any software, only conditions. Second, OSI
> > > itself says, ?Yes, the GPL v2 and v3 are conformant with this
> > > requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the
> > > GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are
> > > merely distributed.?  But the converse is not necessarily true: if
> > > software is not ?linked? it does not follow that a source code sharing
> > > condition violates the definition.
> > >
> > > Open Source Definition -- neutrality.  Various elements of the
> > > definition require that a license be neutral, or not discriminate
> > > against certain users, products or technology.  While our license was
> > > written to address the behavior of large players in the cloud services
> > > sector, it is not facially discriminatory. In this respect, we think
> > > it 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 very 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.
> > >
> > > Scope of derivative works.  Licenses like GPL and AGPL have
> > > historically limited source code delivery requirements to GPL software
> > > and its derivative works.  However, in the nearly 30 years since GPL
> > > was written, the scope of derivative works in software has never been
> > > clarified by courts.  This leaves copyleft licenses vulnerable to
> > > challenge and misinterpretation. GPL v3 improved the clarity of the
> > > scope of copyleft source code sharing conditions over GPL v2, but
> > > still ultimately relies on copyright law terms that are not well
> > > defined in law.  Cloud providers have exploited this ambiguity by
> > > refusing to share their management, automation, monitoring, storage
> > > and hosting code. Under the Server Side Public License, we make it
> > > clearer what software is included in the copyleft source code sharing
> > > condition.
> > >
> > > We are mindful that it is difficult to define terms like value and
> > > functionality.  However, we have drafted our network condition using
> > > customary language and practices, and think that the ambiguities are
> > > only those inherent in natural language.
> > >
> > >
> > > Proliferation category: Recommend which license proliferation category
> > > is appropriate.
> > >
> > > Other Licenses.  Given the license is new, clearly it cannot already
> > > have a significant community.  AGPL has one, but is not listed in that
> > > category on the OSI web site here:
> > > https://opensource.org/proliferation-report.  However, we expect our
> > > license will quickly gain a wide following.  This license will be
> > > applied to MongoDB, which under its current Affero GPL 3.0 license has
> > > one of the most robust communities in open source database software in
> > > the world.  MongoDB was released in 2009, and is the largest big data
> > > community in the world, with over 40 million downloads since 2009 and
> > > over 12 million downloads in the last 12 months.  As of this writing,
> > > the MongoDB GITHUB repository shows over 43,000 commits, 680 releases,
> > > and over 350 contributors. Much as MongoDB pioneered the use of Affero
> > > GPL 3.0, we expect to pioneer the use of this new license.
> > >
> > > In keeping with the License Approval Process submission guidelines:
> > >
> > > - We have read the Open Source Definition and ensured that this
> > > license complies with it.
> > >
> > > - This is an Approval submission, as this is a new license.
> > >
> > > - We have appropriate standing to submit this request, as this license
> > > was created by us.
> > >
> > > - We are subscribed to license-review.
> > >
> > > - This communication is our formal request to license-review.
> > >
> > >
> > > A PLAINTEXT VERSION OF THE LICENSE FOLLOWS:
> > >
> > >
> ====================================================================================
> > >
> > > SERVER SIDE PUBLIC LICENSE
> > >
> > > VERSION 1, OCTOBER 16, 2018
> > >
> > > Copyright ? 2018 MongoDB, Inc.
> > >
> > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> > > license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> > >
> > > TERMS AND CONDITIONS
> > >
> > > 0. Definitions.
> > >
> > > ?This License? refers to Server Side Public License.
> > >
> > > ?Copyright? also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds
> > > of works, such as semiconductor masks.
> > >
> > > ?The Program? refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
> > > License. Each licensee is addressed as ?you?. ?Licensees? and
> > > ?recipients? may be individuals or organizations.
> > >
> > > To ?modify? a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
> > > in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of
> > > an exact copy. The resulting work is called a ?modified version? of
> > > the earlier work or a work ?based on? the earlier work.
> > >
> > > A ?covered work? means either the unmodified Program or a work based
> > > on the Program.
> > >
> > > To ?propagate? a work means to do anything with it that, without
> > > permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
> > > infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
> > > computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
> > > distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
> > > public, and in some countries other activities as well.
> > >
> > > To ?convey? a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
> > > parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user
> > > through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not
> > > conveying.
> > >
> > > An interactive user interface displays ?Appropriate Legal Notices? to
> > > the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
> > > feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
> > > tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
> > > extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
> > > work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
> > > the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
> > > menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
> > >
> > > 1. Source Code.
> > >
> > > The ?source code? for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> > > making modifications to it. ?Object code? means any non-source form of
> > > a work.
> > >
> > > A ?Standard Interface? means an interface that either is an official
> > > standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
> > > interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
> > > is widely used among developers working in that language.
> > >
> > > The ?System Libraries? of an executable work include anything, other
> > > than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
> > > packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
> > > Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
> > > Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
> > > implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
> > > ?Major Component?, in this context, means a major essential component
> > > (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
> > > (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
> > > produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
> > >
> > > The ?Corresponding Source? for a work in object code form means all
> > > the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
> > > work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
> > > control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
> > > System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
> > > programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
> > > which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
> > > includes interface definition files associated with source files for
> > > the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
> > > linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
> > > such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
> > > subprograms and other parts of the work.
> > >
> > > The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can
> > > regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.
> > >
> > > The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same
> work.
> > >
> > > 2. Basic Permissions.
> > >
> > > All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
> > > copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
> > > conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
> > > permission to run the unmodified Program, subject to section 13. The
> > > output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if
> > > the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This
> > > License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as
> > > provided by copyright law.
> > >
> > > Subject to section 13, you may make, run and propagate covered works
> > > that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license
> > > otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for
> > > the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for
> > > you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided
> > > that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all
> > > material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or
> > > running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your
> > > behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them
> > > from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their
> > > relationship with you.
> > >
> > > Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the
> > > conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes
> > > it unnecessary.
> > >
> > > 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> > >
> > > No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
> > > measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
> > > 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
> > > similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
> > > measures.
> > >
> > > When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
> > > circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> > > circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with
> > > respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit
> > > operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against
> > > the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid
> > > circumvention of technological measures.
> > >
> > > 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
> > >
> > > You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
> > > receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
> > > appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
> > > keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
> > > non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
> > > keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
> > > recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
> > >
> > > You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
> > > and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
> > >
> > > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
> > >
> > > You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
> > > produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
> > > terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these
> > > conditions:
> > >
> > > a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it,
> > > and giving a relevant date.
> > >
> > > b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released
> > > under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This
> > > requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to ?keep intact all
> > > notices?.
> > >
> > > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to
> > > anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will
> > > therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms,
> > > to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they
> > > are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in
> > > any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have
> > > separately received it.
> > >
> > > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
> > > Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
> > > interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work
> > > need not make them do so.
> > >
> > > A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
> > > works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
> > > and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
> > > in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
> > > ?aggregate? if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
> > > used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
> > > beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
> > > in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
> > > parts of the aggregate.
> > >
> > > 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
> > >
> > > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
> > > sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
> > > Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these
> > > ways:
> > >
> > > a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
> > > (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
> > > Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily
> > > used for software interchange.
> > >
> > > b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
> > > (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written
> > > offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you
> > > offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give
> > > anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the
> > > Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is
> > > covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used
> > > for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable
> > > cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access
> > > to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
> > >
> > > c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
> > > written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is
> > > allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you
> > > received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection
> > > 6b.
> > >
> > > d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place
> > > (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
> > > Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
> > > further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
> > > Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy
> > > the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be
> > > on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports
> > > equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions
> > > next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.
> > > Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
> > > obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to
> > > satisfy these requirements.
> > >
> > > e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
> > > you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source
> > > of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under
> > > subsection 6d.
> > >
> > > A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
> > > from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
> > > included in conveying the object code work.
> > >
> > > A ?User Product? is either (1) a ?consumer product?, which means any
> > > tangible personal property which is normally used for personal,
> > > family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for
> > > incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a
> > > consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of
> > > coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user,
> > > ?normally used? refers to a typical or common use of that class of
> > > product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way
> > > in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected
> > > to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of
> > > whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or
> > > non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant
> > > mode of use of the product.
> > >
> > > ?Installation Information? for a User Product means any methods,
> > > procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to
> > > install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User
> > > Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The
> > > information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of
> > > the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with
> > > solely because modification has been made.
> > >
> > > If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
> > > specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
> > > part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
> > > User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
> > > fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
> > > Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
> > > by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
> > > if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
> > > modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
> > > been installed in ROM).
> > >
> > > The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
> > > requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or
> > > updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the
> > > recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or
> > > installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification
> > > itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network
> > > or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the
> > > network.
> > >
> > > Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
> > > in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
> > > documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
> > > source code form), and must require no special password or key for
> > > unpacking, reading or copying.
> > >
> > > 7. Additional Terms.
> > >
> > > ?Additional permissions? are terms that supplement the terms of this
> > > License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
> > > Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
> > > be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
> > > that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
> > > apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
> > > under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
> > > this License without regard to the additional permissions.
> > >
> > > When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
> > > remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
> > > it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
> > > removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
> > > additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
> > > for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.
> > >
> > > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
> > > add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders
> > > of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
> > >
> > > a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
> > > terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
> > >
> > > b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
> > > author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
> > > Notices displayed by works containing it; or
> > >
> > > c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
> > > requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
> > > reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
> > >
> > > d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
> > > authors of the material; or
> > >
> > > e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade
> > > names, trademarks, or service marks; or
> > >
> > > f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material
> > > by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with
> > > contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any
> > > liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those
> > > licensors and authors.
> > >
> > > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered ?further
> > > restrictions? within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
> > > received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
> > > governed by this License along with a term that is a further
> > > restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
> > > a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
> > > License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
> > > of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
> > > not survive such relicensing or conveying.
> > >
> > > If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
> > > must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
> > > additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
> > > where to find the applicable terms.
> > >
> > > Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
> > > form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the
> > > above requirements apply either way.
> > >
> > > 8. Termination.
> > >
> > > You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
> > > provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
> > > modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
> > > this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
> > > paragraph of section 11).
> > >
> > > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license
> > > from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally,
> > > unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally
> > > terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder
> > > fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to
> > > 60 days after the cessation.
> > >
> > > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
> > > reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
> > > violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
> > > received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
> > > copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
> > > your receipt of the notice.
> > >
> > > Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
> > > licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
> > > this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
> > > reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
> > > material under section 10.
> > >
> > > 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
> > >
> > > You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
> > > a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
> > > occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
> > > to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
> > > nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
> > > modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
> > > not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
> > > covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
> > >
> > > 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
> > >
> > > Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
> > > receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
> > > propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
> > > for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
> > >
> > > An ?entity transaction? is a transaction transferring control of an
> > > organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
> > > organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered
> > > work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
> > > transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
> > > licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
> > > give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
> > > Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
> > > the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
> > >
> > > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
> > > rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may
> > > not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
> > > rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
> > > (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
> > > any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
> > > sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
> > >
> > > 11. Patents.
> > >
> > > A ?contributor? is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
> > > License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
> > > work thus licensed is called the contributor's ?contributor version?.
> > >
> > > A contributor's ?essential patent claims? are all patent claims owned
> > > or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
> > > hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
> > > by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
> > > but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
> > > consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
> > > purposes of this definition, ?control? includes the right to grant
> > > patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
> > > this License.
> > >
> > > Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
> > > patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
> > > make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
> > > propagate the contents of its contributor version.
> > >
> > > In the following three paragraphs, a ?patent license? is any express
> > > agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
> > > (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
> > > sue for patent infringement). To ?grant? such a patent license to a
> > > party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
> > > patent against the party.
> > >
> > > If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
> > > and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
> > > to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
> > > publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
> > > then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
> > > available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
> > > patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
> > > consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
> > > license to downstream recipients. ?Knowingly relying? means you have
> > > actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
> > > covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
> > > in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
> > > country that you have reason to believe are valid.
> > >
> > > If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
> > > arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
> > > covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
> > > receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
> > > or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
> > > you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
> > > work and works based on it.
> > >
> > > A patent license is ?discriminatory? if it does not include within the
> > > scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on
> > > the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically
> > > granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you
> > > are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the
> > > business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the
> > > third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the
> > > work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties
> > > who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent
> > > license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by
> > > you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in
> > > connection with specific products or compilations that contain the
> > > covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent
> > > license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.
> > >
> > > Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
> > > any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
> > > otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.
> > >
> > > 12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.
> > >
> > > If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> > > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
> > > excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot use,
> > > propagate or convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously
> > > your obligations under this License and any other pertinent
> > > obligations, then as a consequence you may not use, propagate or
> > > convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
> > > to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you
> > > convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms
> > > and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the
> > > Program.
> > >
> > > 13. Offering the Program as a Service.
> > >
> > > 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. Making the functionality of the
> > > Program or modified version available to third parties as a service
> > > includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with
> > > the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through
> > > a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or
> > > primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version,
> > > or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose
> > > of the Software or modified version.
> > >
> > > ?Service Source Code? means the Corresponding Source for the Program
> > > or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs
> > > that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a
> > > service, including, without limitation, management software, user
> > > interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software,
> > > monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting
> > > software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service
> > > using the Service Source Code you make available.
> > >
> > > 14. Revised Versions of this License.
> > >
> > > MongoDB, Inc. may publish revised and/or new versions of the Server
> > > Side Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be
> > > similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
> > > address new problems or concerns.
> > >
> > > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
> > > specifies that a certain numbered version of the Server Side Public
> > > License ?or any later version? applies to it, you have the option of
> > > following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or
> > > of any later version published by MongoDB, Inc. If the Program does
> > > not specify a version number of the Server Side Public License, you
> > > may choose any version ever published by MongoDB, Inc.
> > >
> > > If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions
> > > of the Server Side Public License can be used, that proxy's public
> > > statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to
> > > choose that version for the Program.
> > >
> > > Later license versions may give you additional or different
> > > permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
> > > author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
> > > later version.
> > >
> > > 15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
> > >
> > > THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
> > > APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
> > > HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM ?AS IS? WITHOUT
> > > WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> > > LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
> > > A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND
> > > PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
> > > DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR
> > > CORRECTION.
> > >
> > > 16. Limitation of Liability.
> > >
> > > IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
> > > WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR
> > > CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
> > > INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
> > > ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT
> > > NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR
> > > LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM
> > > TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER
> > > PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
> > >
> > > 17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.
> > >
> > > If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
> > > above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
> > > reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
> > > an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
> > > Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
> > > copy of the Program in return for a fee.
> > >
> > > END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 71, Issue 61
> **********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181027/4d370ca9/attachment-0001.html>