> A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already exist-ing works. A management software might be considered a derived work, depending

> A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already exist-ing works. A management software might be considered a derived work, depending on how coupled it is with the underlying software. There is no black and white definition. The FSF state[1] >> Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). >> So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. [1]:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > Freedom 0 ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose") How does the SSPL violate the freedom in a way that the AGPL does not? The AGPL places a condition on this freedom. The condition that if you make the work available through a public server, then you must make the source code available too. The SSPL is attempting to do the same for what it perceives as derived works (the management software, which is useless without the underlying software). It doesn't place any restriction on use, because you are still free to use it. You just have the condition that you make the code of your derived works available too, similar to the AGPL.