4 ms·

The SSPL is probably the strongest copyleft license in existence. The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. I think the common consensus on the SSPL

The SSPL is probably the strongest copyleft license in existence. The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. I think the common consensus on the SSPL is utterly incorrect, and MongoDB was right to use it.

pritambaral 6y ago
> ... the strongest copyleft license ... So what? That simply means rights are passed down. The problem with the SSPL was never that; it's that the rights that _were_ passed down are _legally impossible_ to fulfill, rendering the whole point of copyleft moot. > The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. The criticisms against the GPL-ed works were about collaboration, not use. The problem with the SSPL is that I cannot legally use SSPL-ed works, in any way. In simpler, analogical, terms: the GPL was designed to be "viral", but the SSPL was designed to be a minefield. Viruses can be harmless; minefields deny combatants, civilians, and peaceful inhabitants alike, forever. Any GPL-ed software could be used without any restrictions on _how_ you use it. Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it. So much for copyleft. ---- http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003742.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-public-license-is-flawed/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-... https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments-on-the-sspl/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments...
- Gollapalli 6y ago
  > Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it. This is clearly not the case. Given a) the text of the license itself, and b) the fact that people still use MongoDB. I think what you meant to say was “I cannot provide MongoDB as a service without open sourcing the rest of what I use directly to provide that service”. In other words, if I want to sell the usage of software which I don’t have the copyright to(remember, open source software may be free, but it’s still owned by somebody), then I have to give my source away as well. It doesn’t say “Thou shalt not compete,” the way the commons clause does. You can still provide Mongo as a service. You can still do anything you want with the software, but you might have to open source the rest of your stack. Honestly, it’s not like Mongo didn’t have a lawyer look at the license (ie write the thing). If it was as horrrible and perilous as you say, they couldn’t use it because all the lawyers of all the other companies who use Mongo would get up in arms. The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source software, which if you really care about that, then why do you care how “closed source” Mongo chose to be?
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Minor nitpick: > b) the fact that people still use MongoDB. Just because people are using something doesn’t mean they’re doing so legally.
  - pritambaral 6y ago
    > ... the text of the license itself ... I'd like to refer you again to the three links I cited in my parent post. > ... the fact that people still use MongoDB That is no basis for legality. If we're to use popularity as a measure, I'd refer to my classic argument about the popularity of competing religions that each denounce the other. > I think what you meant to say was ... No. As I've been saying all along in this thread, the license is legally-unenforceable. But you seem to be insistent on this other point, so I'll take the bait, for now, and hopefully I'll do a good enough job of illustrating my point this time. > "I cannot provide MongoDB as a service without open sourcing the rest of what I use directly to provide that service" 1. "open sourcing" != releasing under the SSPL, which is what's demanded by the SSPL. The SSPL is not an open source license. 2. "... use directly to provide that service": this falls under contract law, not copyright law. Licenses fall under copyright law, not contract law. Licenses dictating terms beyond the scope of the copyrighted work, which is what the SSPL does, is copyright abuse and legally invalid. Copyleft licenses, including the GPL family, work strictly within copyright law; the terms they dictate apply only to the copyrighted work. Yes, derivatives of copyrighted work fall under the same copyright. No, "... use directly to provide that service" does not qualify as derivative work and thus does not fall under the copyright of the original work. > ... didn’t have a lawyer look at the license (ie write the thing). Lawyers across the world write legal briefs, notices, claims, affidavits, contracts etc. and lose all the time. Simply being written by a lawyer does not make something valid or correct. > If it was as horrrible and perilous as you say, they couldn’t use it because all the lawyers of all the other companies who use Mongo would get up in arms. Most users of MongoDB do not do carry out due diligence before using it anyway, or, historically, MongoDB wouldn't have had as many users in the first place. For a neutral example: companies and institutions across the world use pirated works all the time, and not because they actively want to tempt legal trouble. > The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source software ... This is not how open source licenses work — open source licenses do not confer ownership of copyright by mere usage — so I don't know what your point is. Perhaps you were confused by how MongoDB has in the past demanded (and probably still does) copyright transfer before accepting contributions from outside, but, I assure you, that has nothing to do with open source licensing.

pritambaral 6y ago

> ... the strongest copyleft license ... So what? That simply means rights are passed down. The problem with the SSPL was never that; it's that the rights that _were_ passed down are _legally impossible_ to fulfill, rendering the whole point of copyleft moot. > The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. The criticisms against the GPL-ed works were about collaboration, not use. The problem with the SSPL is that I cannot legally use SSPL-ed works, in any way. In simpler, analogical, terms: the GPL was designed to be "viral", but the SSPL was designed to be a minefield. Viruses can be harmless; minefields deny combatants, civilians, and peaceful inhabitants alike, forever. Any GPL-ed software could be used without any restrictions on _how_ you use it. Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it. So much for copyleft. ---- http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003742.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-public-license-is-flawed/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-... https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments-on-the-sspl/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments...

Gollapalli 6y ago
> Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it. This is clearly not the case. Given a) the text of the license itself, and b) the fact that people still use MongoDB. I think what you meant to say was “I cannot provide MongoDB as a service without open sourcing the rest of what I use directly to provide that service”. In other words, if I want to sell the usage of software which I don’t have the copyright to(remember, open source software may be free, but it’s still owned by somebody), then I have to give my source away as well. It doesn’t say “Thou shalt not compete,” the way the commons clause does. You can still provide Mongo as a service. You can still do anything you want with the software, but you might have to open source the rest of your stack. Honestly, it’s not like Mongo didn’t have a lawyer look at the license (ie write the thing). If it was as horrrible and perilous as you say, they couldn’t use it because all the lawyers of all the other companies who use Mongo would get up in arms. The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source software, which if you really care about that, then why do you care how “closed source” Mongo chose to be?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Minor nitpick: > b) the fact that people still use MongoDB. Just because people are using something doesn’t mean they’re doing so legally.
- pritambaral 6y ago
  > ... the text of the license itself ... I'd like to refer you again to the three links I cited in my parent post. > ... the fact that people still use MongoDB That is no basis for legality. If we're to use popularity as a measure, I'd refer to my classic argument about the popularity of competing religions that each denounce the other. > I think what you meant to say was ... No. As I've been saying all along in this thread, the license is legally-unenforceable. But you seem to be insistent on this other point, so I'll take the bait, for now, and hopefully I'll do a good enough job of illustrating my point this time. > "I cannot provide MongoDB as a service without open sourcing the rest of what I use directly to provide that service" 1. "open sourcing" != releasing under the SSPL, which is what's demanded by the SSPL. The SSPL is not an open source license. 2. "... use directly to provide that service": this falls under contract law, not copyright law. Licenses fall under copyright law, not contract law. Licenses dictating terms beyond the scope of the copyrighted work, which is what the SSPL does, is copyright abuse and legally invalid. Copyleft licenses, including the GPL family, work strictly within copyright law; the terms they dictate apply only to the copyrighted work. Yes, derivatives of copyrighted work fall under the same copyright. No, "... use directly to provide that service" does not qualify as derivative work and thus does not fall under the copyright of the original work. > ... didn’t have a lawyer look at the license (ie write the thing). Lawyers across the world write legal briefs, notices, claims, affidavits, contracts etc. and lose all the time. Simply being written by a lawyer does not make something valid or correct. > If it was as horrrible and perilous as you say, they couldn’t use it because all the lawyers of all the other companies who use Mongo would get up in arms. Most users of MongoDB do not do carry out due diligence before using it anyway, or, historically, MongoDB wouldn't have had as many users in the first place. For a neutral example: companies and institutions across the world use pirated works all the time, and not because they actively want to tempt legal trouble. > The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source software ... This is not how open source licenses work — open source licenses do not confer ownership of copyright by mere usage — so I don't know what your point is. Perhaps you were confused by how MongoDB has in the past demanded (and probably still does) copyright transfer before accepting contributions from outside, but, I assure you, that has nothing to do with open source licensing.