4 ms·

> turned out it was SSPL/Commons Clause/BSL Would I mind though? An open source project I work on uses an older version of MongoDB. The question about SSPL has

> turned out it was SSPL/Commons Clause/BSL Would I mind though? An open source project I work on uses an older version of MongoDB. The question about SSPL has, of course, come up. And to our knowledge, it'd be functionally impossible for SSPL to be an issue for our project, it's users (commercial or not), and any forks that could come from our project (commercial or not). The terms of SSPL are so specific that they're harmless to anyone but AWS. Heck, even AWS could use our project with a newer version of MongoDB, and still not run afoul of SSPL! Nonetheless, people are concerned that depending on something a non-OSI-approved license would turn people off to the project. Not for any actual term in the SSPL, just the OSI's gatekeeping. That's a failure of the OSI and the trust we've placed in them. > The OSI does not gather up lawyers. Sounds like the OSI isn't capable of doing the job they've been granted then. They absolutely can have a chat with people and try to find a way to make an OSI approvable license that meets business needs for open source businesses. You are stuck on the process they currently have decided is theirs, and ignoring the fact that that process is not working, and open source projects and companies are hurting because of their inaction. Now, their position seems to be "we don't have to, because it's not our problem if open source businesses are non-viable". And that's remarkably short-sighted, and a complete travesty for the community. Not sure why you'd call my opinion a "threat", or even "pressure", beyond me communicating my displeasure that the OSI is entrusted to a role I don't think they've achieving. This is a discussion forum, and I'm hoping I can convince you to rethink your position, or at least recognize that the OSI has some room for improvement in this area.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cycloptic 7y ago
>Nonetheless, people are concerned that depending on something a non-OSI-approved license would turn people off to the project. That's an accurate concern. The whole purpose of the SSPL is to turn certain people off the project. A fair open source community accepts contributions from everyone, including Amazon employees. If it's working correctly, you get to share in their code as much as they can share in yours. I do hear your concern and I think it's valid but banning them completely from participating is not a solution. You aren't an open source business anymore if you're singling out certain companies and giving them unfair terms. >You are stuck on the process they currently have decided is theirs, and ignoring the fact that that process is not working, and open source projects and companies are hurting because of their inaction. [...] I'm hoping I can convince you to rethink your position, or at least recognize that the OSI has some room for improvement in this area. You are trying to put political pressure on me to criticize the OSI for your own gain and I will not do this. Don't bother. It's not because I don't like you. (I actually really like Sandstorm!) The OSI is an extremely small non-profit with 1 employee and everything else being volunteer-driven. They don't really have the resources to care if you snub them. Participate in open source? You are part of that community, and the discussion is open to you. There is no gatekeeping here. If your needs are not being met, you need to speak up in the relevant places. No amount of of trying to "convince" me is going to make it so I can help you with this. I can't speak for you and it's pointless for us to complain about decisions that were already made and definitely won't change as a result of some HN comments. Find a more constructive way to approach this.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Nothing about SSPL bans them from contributing. But like the GPL, it requires contributing back. The idea that GPL is open source and SSPL is not seems logically incompatible. As for the OSI’s resources, I am sure the companies trying to do this like MongoDB would happily cover expenses if it meant resolving this. I have no idea how you think discussing this equates to me “putting political pressure on you”.
  - cycloptic 7y ago
    The SSPL is very clearly out of compliance with section 9 of the OSD which states "The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software." This condition is there because such requirements make it very difficult for companies with a lot of other infrastructure to to adopt the software. This isn't exactly a new thing either, it was known to be a problem decades ago when the OSD was written. I don't even know why this is disputed, the admitted goal of the SSPL is to make it difficult for Amazon to adopt the software. >I am sure the companies trying to do this like MongoDB would happily cover expenses if it meant resolving this. I said this before, but if you believe that's true then you should contact them. The last statement I saw from them, they gave up and pulled out of the license review process [0] and were instead seeking to conduct conversations outside the OSI. >I have no idea how you think discussing this equates to me “putting political pressure on you”. This is my response any time someone tries to convince me to criticize (or praise) an organization in a space where no representatives of the organization are present and none of them can hear our concerns or act on them in any meaningful way. The only meaningful action that could ever occur as a result of the conversation is that one of the participants could "switch sides". But as we know from any political discussions, it's unlikely for someone to change their views solely as a result of an off-hand conversation. If I'm reading this wrong and there is something else here other than that, please tell me. FWIW, I don't really have a "side" to be on in this matter anyway. I just try to stick to the facts. [0] https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/003989.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cycloptic 7y ago

>Nonetheless, people are concerned that depending on something a non-OSI-approved license would turn people off to the project. That's an accurate concern. The whole purpose of the SSPL is to turn certain people off the project. A fair open source community accepts contributions from everyone, including Amazon employees. If it's working correctly, you get to share in their code as much as they can share in yours. I do hear your concern and I think it's valid but banning them completely from participating is not a solution. You aren't an open source business anymore if you're singling out certain companies and giving them unfair terms. >You are stuck on the process they currently have decided is theirs, and ignoring the fact that that process is not working, and open source projects and companies are hurting because of their inaction. [...] I'm hoping I can convince you to rethink your position, or at least recognize that the OSI has some room for improvement in this area. You are trying to put political pressure on me to criticize the OSI for your own gain and I will not do this. Don't bother. It's not because I don't like you. (I actually really like Sandstorm!) The OSI is an extremely small non-profit with 1 employee and everything else being volunteer-driven. They don't really have the resources to care if you snub them. Participate in open source? You are part of that community, and the discussion is open to you. There is no gatekeeping here. If your needs are not being met, you need to speak up in the relevant places. No amount of of trying to "convince" me is going to make it so I can help you with this. I can't speak for you and it's pointless for us to complain about decisions that were already made and definitely won't change as a result of some HN comments. Find a more constructive way to approach this.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Nothing about SSPL bans them from contributing. But like the GPL, it requires contributing back. The idea that GPL is open source and SSPL is not seems logically incompatible. As for the OSI’s resources, I am sure the companies trying to do this like MongoDB would happily cover expenses if it meant resolving this. I have no idea how you think discussing this equates to me “putting political pressure on you”.
- cycloptic 7y ago
  The SSPL is very clearly out of compliance with section 9 of the OSD which states "The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software." This condition is there because such requirements make it very difficult for companies with a lot of other infrastructure to to adopt the software. This isn't exactly a new thing either, it was known to be a problem decades ago when the OSD was written. I don't even know why this is disputed, the admitted goal of the SSPL is to make it difficult for Amazon to adopt the software. >I am sure the companies trying to do this like MongoDB would happily cover expenses if it meant resolving this. I said this before, but if you believe that's true then you should contact them. The last statement I saw from them, they gave up and pulled out of the license review process [0] and were instead seeking to conduct conversations outside the OSI. >I have no idea how you think discussing this equates to me “putting political pressure on you”. This is my response any time someone tries to convince me to criticize (or praise) an organization in a space where no representatives of the organization are present and none of them can hear our concerns or act on them in any meaningful way. The only meaningful action that could ever occur as a result of the conversation is that one of the participants could "switch sides". But as we know from any political discussions, it's unlikely for someone to change their views solely as a result of an off-hand conversation. If I'm reading this wrong and there is something else here other than that, please tell me. FWIW, I don't really have a "side" to be on in this matter anyway. I just try to stick to the facts. [0] https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/003989.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....