3 ms·
FWIW: This license is almost certainly incompatible with GPLv3. They struck the portion of section 13 that allowed for such combinations. (You can see it in t
by DannyBee 8y ago
FWIW: This license is almost certainly incompatible with GPLv3.
They struck the portion of section 13 that allowed for such combinations.
(You can see it in the redline they published here:https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compared-to-AGPL.pdf https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare...)
- codemac 8y agoIt's interesting, because it seems they're making an even stronger license, requiring source to be available over a network for download - it seems they could have left that paragraph in.
- gnulinux 8y agoYes this is even more restrictive than GNU AGPLv3. If FSF is ok with these changes they might even approve it (GNU AGPLv4? Recall that AGPL wasn't a thing before Affero made it).
- detuur 8y agoEveryone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Can someone enlighten me on the significance of this piece of text? Does it mean you're not allowed to edit the license and publish it under the same name, or does it effectively copyright the entire license text? I'm gravitating towards the former since this is a case where the text was edited but renamed, but I'd still like some clarity. As an aside, is it even possible to copyright a license? There's a copyright notice so isn't this technically plagiarism?