[License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)
bruce at perens.com
Sun Feb 17 19:00:02 UTC 2019
As far as I can tell, the submission never was compliant with the OSD and
never could be without discarding its intent. Resolving lesser issues isn't
really responsive to that. This is not an issue of my being a honcho, but
of clearly stated rules in the OSD that the license intent very obviously
came into conflict with. OSD #9: You don't encumber unrelated programs. OSD
#6: You don't single out a particular type of business to be discriminated
against in your license.
As you are well aware, I am happy to cooperate with those other efforts to
create license paradigms, as long as they don't call themselves "Open
Source", but we should acknowledge that these are responding to company
needs rather than the needs of users or public development communities.
They address a different subject matter than Open Source, and don't belong
under the Open Source umbrella. It is thus entirely correct that they
happen elsewhere, that they choose their own distinctive brand, and that
they avoid confusion between their paradigm and the Open Source / Free
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 10:09 AM Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:
> On 2019-02-16 22:02, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > The language struck here is the main problem keeping the proposed license
> > from being accepted as compliant with the Open Source Definition. I
> > that we objected to similar language in the first version, and am
> > as to why you felt the need to refine the definition of software as a
> > service, since *this was not responsive to the objections to the
> Eliot's refinement is highly responsive to my primary
> objection to both v1 and v2. It wasn't mine alone.
> How Bruce's objection automatically becomes the main and
> only objection, I am not given to know. I fear Richard's
> admirable stab at process reform brings no clarity there,
> and muddies waters elsewhere, besides. All of this calls
> Luis' prior effort to mind. With reformers like those, and
> results like these, my doubts turn to the reformed.
> On first glance, the new section looks like an improvement.
> It's speaking in terms more like those we've used to
> describe intent and effect, which is a very good sign. But
> it takes well more than a day to assess changes like these,
> in the crux of the license, in detail, especially when the
> rest of the text runs this long. If I have thoughts, Eliot
> and Heather will have them, privately. They can bring them
> here if they like.
> As for me, I've lost confidence in this body's ability to
> make rigorous decisions, or even facilitate focused debate,
> on any remotely interesting new copyleft license. At least
> when certain old hands do not play authorial or consultative
> parts. So I've otherwise stopped responding, and focused my
> efforts where collective time and talent have hope of
> yielding practical results. In that I am also not alone.
> Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review