[License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Thu Oct 18 19:02:45 UTC 2018
Kyle Michell wrote:
> Provision of a network service without modification is constructive distribution under OSL and NPOSL.
True, but let me clarify the essential difference from other network copyleft licenses like the AGPL: Neither OSL nor NPOSL claim "Corresponding Source." Only the source code of that Original Work or a Derivative Work must be disclosed under copyleft conditions. All of that extra stuff that lets software interwork collectively remains under its original licenses.
OSL is already an appropriate "server side public license" without a "corresponding source code" risk.
From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Kyle Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 11:32 AM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)
On 2018-10-18 11:10, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Heya, SSPL reads:
> > 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.
> in contrast, AGPL:
> > if you *modify the Program*, your modified version must prominently
> > offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer
> > network
> so SSPL triggers on mere use, rather than on modification (+ use).
> This point hasn't seen much discussion in this thread yet, but it
> seems to me to be both a major difference with the status quo and a
> potential blocker in view of OSD §6 (or, more generally, Freedom 0).
> This looks like a more significant differentiation point between AGPL
> and SSPL, rather than the stated motivation that it is unclear what is
> the reach of AGPL copyleft provision.
Provision of a network service without modification is constructive distribution under OSL and NPOSL.
Modification without provision of a network service triggers under private-licenses/patches-back licenses that OSI approved for dual licensors in the early 2000s. The list to review is Plan 9 (Lucent), Watcom (Sybase), and RPL (Technical Pursuit).
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
License-review mailing list
License-review at lists.opensource.org
More information about the License-review