4 ms·

Also, why is SSPL not open source? As far as I can tell, it mostly just seems like the APGL, but taken to 11. I can definitely appreciate why it's a problematic

Also, why is SSPL not open source? As far as I can tell, it mostly just seems like the APGL, but taken to 11. I can definitely appreciate why it's a problematic license, but I don't think "not open source" is its problem.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
It seems it has neither the OSI's blessing as an Open Source licence, nor the FSF's blessing as a Free Software licence. Can anyone comment on why not, given that the AGPL has the blessing of both organisations? edit Here's an informative StackExchange comment. [0] Apparently it's a good deal stricter than the AGPL, and introduces much more legal uncertainty. [0] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/7523/ https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/7523/
- frenchy 6y ago
  Yes, I could see someone putting forward the argument that the SSPL is so unusable that ElasticSearch isn't actually expecting anyone to use it, and therefore it's more of a marketing gimmic than a license.
- Graphguy 6y ago
  https://opensource.org/LicenseReview122018 https://opensource.org/LicenseReview122018
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    Good link, thanks. I don't think there's a equivalent response from the FSF, perhaps it was never submitted for FSF approval.
- necovek 6y ago
  One of the core tenets of free software licensing is that there is a fair, symmetrical relationship for all parties involved. Elastic obviously does not publish their own management infrastructure code under SSLP, so the reason for this license to exist is to make the playing field uneven as opposed to all the other free software licenses. Basically, they can benefit from your code on top of and around ES, while you can't from theirs. This is actually the result of dual licensing but with other free licenses, at least the symmetry is maintained for the core product. I am not making a judgement call here, just explaining what the distinction is.
tus88 6y ago
Because you can't fork it and do whatever you want with it.
- frenchy 6y ago
  You can't? I mean presumably you can't fork it and re-license the fork, but that's not exactly new.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  You can't "do whatever" with plain GPL-licensed code either yet linux is considered open and free source code.
lmc 6y ago
I found myself asking the same question a few weeks ago. The StackExchange link is probably more comprehensive, but I wrote a bit about it as well, here: https://blog.mcquade.dev/why-is-the-sspl-not-an-open-source-license/ https://blog.mcquade.dev/why-is-the-sspl-not-an-open-source-...

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

It seems it has neither the OSI's blessing as an Open Source licence, nor the FSF's blessing as a Free Software licence. Can anyone comment on why not, given that the AGPL has the blessing of both organisations? edit Here's an informative StackExchange comment. [0] Apparently it's a good deal stricter than the AGPL, and introduces much more legal uncertainty. [0] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/7523/ https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/7523/

frenchy 6y ago
Yes, I could see someone putting forward the argument that the SSPL is so unusable that ElasticSearch isn't actually expecting anyone to use it, and therefore it's more of a marketing gimmic than a license.
Graphguy 6y ago
https://opensource.org/LicenseReview122018 https://opensource.org/LicenseReview122018
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Good link, thanks. I don't think there's a equivalent response from the FSF, perhaps it was never submitted for FSF approval.
necovek 6y ago
One of the core tenets of free software licensing is that there is a fair, symmetrical relationship for all parties involved. Elastic obviously does not publish their own management infrastructure code under SSLP, so the reason for this license to exist is to make the playing field uneven as opposed to all the other free software licenses. Basically, they can benefit from your code on top of and around ES, while you can't from theirs. This is actually the result of dual licensing but with other free licenses, at least the symmetry is maintained for the core product. I am not making a judgement call here, just explaining what the distinction is.

tus88 6y ago

Because you can't fork it and do whatever you want with it.

frenchy 6y ago
You can't? I mean presumably you can't fork it and re-license the fork, but that's not exactly new.
fabianhjr 6y ago
You can't "do whatever" with plain GPL-licensed code either yet linux is considered open and free source code.

lmc 6y ago

I found myself asking the same question a few weeks ago. The StackExchange link is probably more comprehensive, but I wrote a bit about it as well, here: https://blog.mcquade.dev/why-is-the-sspl-not-an-open-source-license/ https://blog.mcquade.dev/why-is-the-sspl-not-an-open-source-...