7 ms·

so, for the license experts out there, what's the difference between AGPLv3 and SSPLv1

by bedros 8y ago

basilgohar 8y ago
No expert here, but the AGPLv3 and SSPLv1 are completely different. The only significant conditions AGPLv3 imposes beyond GPLv3 is that usage requires distribution of source. This doesn't mean you cannot use it commercially. For some reason, many people think software freedom and commercial use are somehow exclusive, but this is only ever the case if your business model relies on the artificial scarcity of digital goods such as your source code. [0] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech2.html https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech2.html [1] https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2017/fall/respecting-freedom-is-better-for-business https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2017/fall/respecting-freedom-is... [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- kanox 8y ago
  > many people think software freedom and commercial use are somehow exclusive My understanding is that software "freedom" requires free commercial use. Allowing free personal use is not sufficient. These concepts are not only not exclusive but one implies the other.
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    Just to be clear: free as in freedom, not as in beer. You can charge as much as you want for use. You can choose your customers in any way you want. However, once they are your customer, you can not deny them the source code, nor can you deny them the ability to use the code, or further distribute the source code. The short circuit that many people make is that if you can't create scarcity for the code, then you can't make money and hence you can't have a commercial service. This is not true, but it does mean that you can't stop people from offering exactly the same service that you do, using the code that you wrote to do it. A free software commercial service needs to work differently than most people initially think about wrt commercial services. You need to offer something that is valuable to the customer that isn't the software. Companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc are well place to profit from free software because they can offer hardware abstraction services at a price/scale that is virtually impossible to compete with. This is really the problem that some services are running into -- if you are only offering hosting as your service then you have a problem. Generic hosting companies can undercut you (and also outperform you because hosting is all they do). You have to write the software and host it. They only have to host it. This is again why some companies turn to "open core", where they offer more functionality using proprietary software in order to provide more reason to pay for it. Again, they are creating scarcity of the code in order sell it. But this is not a free software business. It's a proprietary software business with a free software loss leader. Every time I look at this problem, I come back to the same conclusion. There is only one thing that a free software company can provide as a service for which they have an advantage over the competition: writing software. You somehow have to link the creating of new software to customer sales. Whether you do that via customer services, contracts, or some other clever idea that I haven't thought about, I don't think you have any choice. Usually companies can't think of a way to scale this, so they abandon the idea, but I think it's probably possible (ala Red Hat). Perhaps I'm wrong.
giancarlostoro 8y ago
From: https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq#difference https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license... > What specifically is different between the GPL and the SSPL and what will it be called? > The new license will be called Server Side Public License (SSPL) > The only substantive modification is section 13, which makes clear the condition to offering MongoDB as a service. A company that offers a publicly available MongoDB as a service must open source the software it uses to offer such service, including the management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the source code made available. > Section 13 of the SSPL reads as follows: > “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. 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 Software or modified version. > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.” So the license is closest to GPL than anything.
- rubyfan 8y ago
  That’s a ridiculous anti-competitive poison pill that discourages value added services.
  - pas 8y ago
    Yes and no. You can do it open source, or you can make a deal with MongoDB Inc. Let's say AWS were open source, would people start renting datacenters right away? Many people argue no, because AWS is about economies of scale.
blattimwind 8y ago
AGPL says SaaS needs to make source modifications available. SSPL says SaaS needs to make their whole stack open source. > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.”
- GordonS 8y ago
  Then I don't get Mongo's beef here - with AGPL, AWS would have had to open source any changes to MongoDB, hence potentially leading to improvements in MongoDB, and "giving back to the community". Why would they think it was a good idea to make orgs open source their whole stack? Wouldn't this obviously result in companies moving away wholesale?
  - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
    It was an explicit goal to protect the sustainability of MongoDB's R&D investment in addition to encouraging community contributions. Source (original announcement): https://www.mongodb.com/press/mongodb-issues-new-server-side-public-license-for-mongodb-community-server https://www.mongodb.com/press/mongodb-issues-new-server-side...
    - Proven 8y ago
      Yeah right, except that enFORCING is different from "encouraging". Were outside Mongo contributors not encouraged before this license change?
  - pas 8y ago
    https://stratechery.com/2019/aws-mongodb-and-the-economic-realities-of-open-source/ https://stratechery.com/2019/aws-mongodb-and-the-economic-re...

so, for the license experts out there, what's the difference between AGPLv3 and SSPLv1

by bedros 8y ago

so, for the license experts out there, what's the difference between AGPLv3 and SSPLv1

No expert here, but the AGPLv3 and SSPLv1 are completely different. The only significant conditions AGPLv3 imposes beyond GPLv3 is that usage requires distribution of source. This doesn't mean you cannot use it commercially. For some reason, many people think software freedom and commercial use are somehow exclusive, but this is only ever the case if your business model relies on the artificial scarcity of digital goods such as your source code. [0] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech2.html https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech2.html [1] https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2017/fall/respecting-freedom-is-better-for-business https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2017/fall/respecting-freedom-is... [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

kanox 8y ago
> many people think software freedom and commercial use are somehow exclusive My understanding is that software "freedom" requires free commercial use. Allowing free personal use is not sufficient. These concepts are not only not exclusive but one implies the other.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Just to be clear: free as in freedom, not as in beer. You can charge as much as you want for use. You can choose your customers in any way you want. However, once they are your customer, you can not deny them the source code, nor can you deny them the ability to use the code, or further distribute the source code. The short circuit that many people make is that if you can't create scarcity for the code, then you can't make money and hence you can't have a commercial service. This is not true, but it does mean that you can't stop people from offering exactly the same service that you do, using the code that you wrote to do it. A free software commercial service needs to work differently than most people initially think about wrt commercial services. You need to offer something that is valuable to the customer that isn't the software. Companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc are well place to profit from free software because they can offer hardware abstraction services at a price/scale that is virtually impossible to compete with. This is really the problem that some services are running into -- if you are only offering hosting as your service then you have a problem. Generic hosting companies can undercut you (and also outperform you because hosting is all they do). You have to write the software and host it. They only have to host it. This is again why some companies turn to "open core", where they offer more functionality using proprietary software in order to provide more reason to pay for it. Again, they are creating scarcity of the code in order sell it. But this is not a free software business. It's a proprietary software business with a free software loss leader. Every time I look at this problem, I come back to the same conclusion. There is only one thing that a free software company can provide as a service for which they have an advantage over the competition: writing software. You somehow have to link the creating of new software to customer sales. Whether you do that via customer services, contracts, or some other clever idea that I haven't thought about, I don't think you have any choice. Usually companies can't think of a way to scale this, so they abandon the idea, but I think it's probably possible (ala Red Hat). Perhaps I'm wrong.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

From: https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq#difference https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license... > What specifically is different between the GPL and the SSPL and what will it be called? > The new license will be called Server Side Public License (SSPL) > The only substantive modification is section 13, which makes clear the condition to offering MongoDB as a service. A company that offers a publicly available MongoDB as a service must open source the software it uses to offer such service, including the management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the source code made available. > Section 13 of the SSPL reads as follows: > “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. 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 Software or modified version. > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.” So the license is closest to GPL than anything.

rubyfan 8y ago
That’s a ridiculous anti-competitive poison pill that discourages value added services.
- pas 8y ago
  Yes and no. You can do it open source, or you can make a deal with MongoDB Inc. Let's say AWS were open source, would people start renting datacenters right away? Many people argue no, because AWS is about economies of scale.

blattimwind 8y ago

AGPL says SaaS needs to make source modifications available. SSPL says SaaS needs to make their whole stack open source. > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.”

GordonS 8y ago
Then I don't get Mongo's beef here - with AGPL, AWS would have had to open source any changes to MongoDB, hence potentially leading to improvements in MongoDB, and "giving back to the community". Why would they think it was a good idea to make orgs open source their whole stack? Wouldn't this obviously result in companies moving away wholesale?
- SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
  It was an explicit goal to protect the sustainability of MongoDB's R&D investment in addition to encouraging community contributions. Source (original announcement): https://www.mongodb.com/press/mongodb-issues-new-server-side-public-license-for-mongodb-community-server https://www.mongodb.com/press/mongodb-issues-new-server-side...
  - Proven 8y ago
    Yeah right, except that enFORCING is different from "encouraging". Were outside Mongo contributors not encouraged before this license change?
- pas 8y ago
  https://stratechery.com/2019/aws-mongodb-and-the-economic-realities-of-open-source/ https://stratechery.com/2019/aws-mongodb-and-the-economic-re...