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

[Smith, McCoy]

>From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
>Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 12:53 PM
>To: 'License submissions for OSI review' <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)

Eliot Horowitz said this:
" Members have flagged the fact that the copyleft provisions of SSPL extend to other software that is used to make the Program available as a service."

... and Eliot quoted this from the SSPL:
"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 Program or modified version." (Underlining added.)

>I like clear definitions, and this is certainly broader than the "interacting with" phrase you quoted also from AGPL, but I'm not sure I like this one enough to support it as a good FOSS license provision. I think I know what you intend, but those words don't >yet work for me.

I would also point out (and someone else on the original thread raised this first) that the following phrases (which trigger source obligations):

“Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service”  and
“[O]ffering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program”

Would appear to obligate one to release source code for programs that are similar to, or attempt to replicate the features of, the “Program,” but are in no way derived (in a copyright sense) from it.

I’m assuming that is not the intent, but some revision of the language to prevent that reading would seem to be in order.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181211/39c3c60a/attachment.html>