4 ms·

I know about that phrase. The problem is that it doesn't match with the way big companies deploy services. They set it up across the company and then expose it

I know about that phrase. The problem is that it doesn't match with the way big companies deploy services. They set it up across the company and then expose it externally so they can recoup costs. The reason it's open source to them is because they are allowed to do this and because it's easy, if it wasn't for this they would have zero interest in participating in the community. I assume you know this full well since this seems to be what you believe the SSPL attempts to stop? The other problem I have with that section (and this is where it gets into my personal opinion) is that the forced copylefting of everything else doesn't make any sense. The GPLs are very clear that they only apply to the software covered by the license and any derived works. The SSPL leans way over that. These type of "extreme copyleft" licenses have been around before and they never stuck because it's really difficult for anyone to comply with them. People participating in the MongoDB community care about the database, they don't care about getting the source code to some unrelated components that happen to be on the same server. The whole section just reads like a bad attempt at additional activism to get Amazon to release the source code to AWS. And don't get me wrong, I'm an open source advocate, I think it would be cool if AWS was open sourced. But they aren't going to do it as a result of the license in some random database. If they ever do, it will be because their paying customers asked for it.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
The ironic thing is: SSPL could actually make it possible for Amazon to choose to open source AWS. Because they could share the source without letting their competitors steal their competitive edge. I could benefit from the technology AWS developed without Azure or Google Cloud being able to similarly clone it. A business-viable open source license opens the potential to massively expand the viability of open source businesses and the practice of open sourcing code. SSPL's language probably needs a tweak or two, but that section communicates the intent of the SSPL very well: It's literally Wheaton's Law. "Take our stuff, build cool stuff with it. Don't literally copy it for the purposes of putting us out of business."
- cycloptic 7y ago
  I don't think that's true. If the competitive edge is in the released code, then MS and Google would also be able to use that and contribute to it to if they also followed the terms. What you would really want is for all of these companies to follow the terms of the SSPL, not just one of them. But doing that would be very hard with the SSPL as it is now. It has a serious practical issue which was inserted on purpose in order to prevent adoption by those companies. I disagree that open source needs more licenses that are deemed "business-viable". Open source is a development strategy for sharing code, it has nothing to do with any business model. This is why MIT- and BSD-licensed code is the cornerstone of all these startups, those licenses don't give a crap what your business model is and it would be really bad if they did. If you want to help the community, please make it your priority to think about things that are good for everyone, not just your business. If you want to know my take on the philosophy of this, it's more like "Take our stuff, build cool stuff with it. Literally copy it if you want, it doesn't matter because our business is strong enough to withstand it." You might think I'm favoring large companies here but being strong enough to withstand it isn't about having more money, it's about having enough to differentiate yourself in the marketplace. Any company can have that, and if you're taking outside funding you probably should have that before you even talk to investors. I hate that I have to keep saying this but open source is about sharing code with everyone including your competitors. If you do it right you get to use their code too and everyone makes tons of money. Banning them from using your code entirely will not help to accomplish this goal.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

The ironic thing is: SSPL could actually make it possible for Amazon to choose to open source AWS. Because they could share the source without letting their competitors steal their competitive edge. I could benefit from the technology AWS developed without Azure or Google Cloud being able to similarly clone it. A business-viable open source license opens the potential to massively expand the viability of open source businesses and the practice of open sourcing code. SSPL's language probably needs a tweak or two, but that section communicates the intent of the SSPL very well: It's literally Wheaton's Law. "Take our stuff, build cool stuff with it. Don't literally copy it for the purposes of putting us out of business."

cycloptic 7y ago
I don't think that's true. If the competitive edge is in the released code, then MS and Google would also be able to use that and contribute to it to if they also followed the terms. What you would really want is for all of these companies to follow the terms of the SSPL, not just one of them. But doing that would be very hard with the SSPL as it is now. It has a serious practical issue which was inserted on purpose in order to prevent adoption by those companies. I disagree that open source needs more licenses that are deemed "business-viable". Open source is a development strategy for sharing code, it has nothing to do with any business model. This is why MIT- and BSD-licensed code is the cornerstone of all these startups, those licenses don't give a crap what your business model is and it would be really bad if they did. If you want to help the community, please make it your priority to think about things that are good for everyone, not just your business. If you want to know my take on the philosophy of this, it's more like "Take our stuff, build cool stuff with it. Literally copy it if you want, it doesn't matter because our business is strong enough to withstand it." You might think I'm favoring large companies here but being strong enough to withstand it isn't about having more money, it's about having enough to differentiate yourself in the marketplace. Any company can have that, and if you're taking outside funding you probably should have that before you even talk to investors. I hate that I have to keep saying this but open source is about sharing code with everyone including your competitors. If you do it right you get to use their code too and everyone makes tons of money. Banning them from using your code entirely will not help to accomplish this goal.