5 ms·

>Why can't there be a license which is "open-source" but stops anyone from building a "directly competiting commercial offering" Because it is not an "open-sou

>Why can't there be a license which is "open-source" but stops anyone from building a "directly competiting commercial offering" Because it is not an "open-source" license if it restricts how people can use the code. There is no "except for direct competitors" loophole. The SSPL is a "source-available" license, not an "open-source" one. I certainly sympathize with your outlook; everyone needs to make a living. But I could also understand people complaining if you're advertising your SSPL code as open-source, because...it isn't.

soumyadeb 7y ago
I am not hiding that we are SSPL (I am trying to defend it here :)) But to understand your concern, you are saying someone owns the (copyright or whatever legal structure is) term "open-source" and us using is a violation of that.
- ryukafalz 7y ago
  The term predates its use in software, but as used in the software industry it typically refers to the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Deviating from that isn’t illegal (they don’t own the term), but claiming your software is open source if it doesn’t meet that definition will generally earn you some blowback.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  It's not so much a legal thing as an ideological one. "Open-source" is a manifestation of the idea that knowledge should be free. It's based on the belief that societies grow when people are not restricted in how they build upon our collective accomplishments. We have plenty of ways to reward innovation: patents, closed IP, commercial licensing, etc. But open source is about giving freely to the people around you, not rewards. Selective commercial licensing is fine, and it's still nice that you let people see how things work so that they can learn and suggest improvements. But it isn't open source, and it feels deceptive when people misuse the term. Open-source code is a gift, and gifts don't come with demands.
  - soumyadeb 7y ago
    Gift without demand is an interesting analogy. But if you think about it, licenses like GPLv3 and AGPL do have very strong restrictions on how to use the software. Fair enough that they are not to "reward back to you" but around "how to use the gift". SSPL is essentially GPL + a small restriction on certain usage (which practically only impacts the large cloud providers). To say, this is just "source available" is not entirely fair. This is different from Oracle saying you can see DB source to do your security scan but that's all. But I get your overall point. Need to think more on how to position this so people don't feel "deceived" but at the same time appreciate the "free/open-ness" part of it. SSPL may not be the answer but there has to be a solution.
    - leggomylibro 7y ago
      Yes, but I also dislike copyleft for the same reasons. Personally, I draw a distinction between "open-source" software and the more restrictive and viral "Free Software" which Stallman argued for, but that's been argued ad nauseum. My opinion is obviously far to one side of this debate, but you said that you had users who didn't like your license. People who feel that open source is important might see extra restrictions as extra liabilities. Hey, did you ever hear about that time when IBM's lawyers had to ask for an exemption to a license which required that the software be "used for Good, not Evil"? :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
      - soumyadeb 7y ago
        Haha, this is funny.
  - soumyadeb 7y ago
    Open-Source vs Free is also an interesting debate - a good read here https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
SSPL is a copyleft license, and it's definitely open source. It doesn't prohibit competitive commercial offerings. It just requires them to share their source, just like a GPL.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  >and it's definitely open source. Not according to what open source currently means, no.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Only if we define it as “what the OSI approves of”. Otherwise, SSPL doesn’t prohibit commercial use, it’s just a somewhat-aggressive copyleft license.

soumyadeb 7y ago

I am not hiding that we are SSPL (I am trying to defend it here :)) But to understand your concern, you are saying someone owns the (copyright or whatever legal structure is) term "open-source" and us using is a violation of that.

ryukafalz 7y ago
The term predates its use in software, but as used in the software industry it typically refers to the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Deviating from that isn’t illegal (they don’t own the term), but claiming your software is open source if it doesn’t meet that definition will generally earn you some blowback.
leggomylibro 7y ago
It's not so much a legal thing as an ideological one. "Open-source" is a manifestation of the idea that knowledge should be free. It's based on the belief that societies grow when people are not restricted in how they build upon our collective accomplishments. We have plenty of ways to reward innovation: patents, closed IP, commercial licensing, etc. But open source is about giving freely to the people around you, not rewards. Selective commercial licensing is fine, and it's still nice that you let people see how things work so that they can learn and suggest improvements. But it isn't open source, and it feels deceptive when people misuse the term. Open-source code is a gift, and gifts don't come with demands.
- soumyadeb 7y ago
  Gift without demand is an interesting analogy. But if you think about it, licenses like GPLv3 and AGPL do have very strong restrictions on how to use the software. Fair enough that they are not to "reward back to you" but around "how to use the gift". SSPL is essentially GPL + a small restriction on certain usage (which practically only impacts the large cloud providers). To say, this is just "source available" is not entirely fair. This is different from Oracle saying you can see DB source to do your security scan but that's all. But I get your overall point. Need to think more on how to position this so people don't feel "deceived" but at the same time appreciate the "free/open-ness" part of it. SSPL may not be the answer but there has to be a solution.
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    Yes, but I also dislike copyleft for the same reasons. Personally, I draw a distinction between "open-source" software and the more restrictive and viral "Free Software" which Stallman argued for, but that's been argued ad nauseum. My opinion is obviously far to one side of this debate, but you said that you had users who didn't like your license. People who feel that open source is important might see extra restrictions as extra liabilities. Hey, did you ever hear about that time when IBM's lawyers had to ask for an exemption to a license which required that the software be "used for Good, not Evil"? :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
    - soumyadeb 7y ago
      Haha, this is funny.
- soumyadeb 7y ago
  Open-Source vs Free is also an interesting debate - a good read here https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

SSPL is a copyleft license, and it's definitely open source. It doesn't prohibit competitive commercial offerings. It just requires them to share their source, just like a GPL.

diffeomorphism 7y ago
>and it's definitely open source. Not according to what open source currently means, no.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Only if we define it as “what the OSI approves of”. Otherwise, SSPL doesn’t prohibit commercial use, it’s just a somewhat-aggressive copyleft license.