[License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)

[Brendan Hickey]

There are two central objections to the SSPL, neither of which has been
satisfactorily addressed:

1) It violates OSD #6 due to its reliance on concepts like "value" and
"primary purpose."
2) It violates OSD #9 by encumbering unrelated software.

What's special about these claims versus others? Simply, a license that
doesn't conform to the OSD must be rejected. As long as these problems are
unresolved everything else -- like the definition of SAAS -- is just window
dressing.

I trust the board won't reset their clock in light of insubstantial
tinkering.

Brendan


On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 1:09 PM 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
> believe
> > that we objected to similar language in the first version, and am
> confused
> > 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
> license.*
>
> 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
>
> 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/20190217/600057be/attachment.html>