4 ms·

A huge blogpost just to rant that neither OSI nor a large part of the public think that the license he likes to use to discriminate across lines of businesses c

A huge blogpost just to rant that neither OSI nor a large part of the public think that the license he likes to use to discriminate across lines of businesses could be labeled "Open Source". Just call your thing "source available" or make up your own special club and stop complaining you don't get the same treatment than licenses that don't discriminate people. Or you know, decide who has to/doesn't have to share code without caring about what the product that's building upon your software is about or who's building it. Like the rest of us who actually care about Open Source beyond using it as a PR tool for your business.

shiftingleft 6y ago
I haven't informed myself too much so please call out if/where I'm wrong. In my mind the super quick version of this entire thing seems to be: - GPL requires you to publicize your changes if you distribute the software. - SSPL is more or less the same as GPL, but also requires you to publicize your changes if you offer the software as a service to others. To me it really seems as if SSPL is a more modern GPL, fit for the SaaS world. What am I missing?
- detaro 6y ago
  SSPL: > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. That's a lot more than "your changes" and is impossible to meet if you use any commercial software or a service provided by others pretty much anywhere in your stack.
  - shiftingleft 6y ago
    Oh, yeah. I can't imagine publishing the entire source code of your entire stack even being possible. What if you have some 3rd party vendor software in there? Are you required to publish their source too?
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    I feel like that's the point. Make free software be attractive to use, then attach riders such that it has network effects. That way, user freedom is maximized. It's taking the long-term view that it is better to work towards having a free software ecosystem, rather than just having a particular software be widely used as soon as possible.
    - detaro 6y ago
      If that would apply to everyone I could see that, but the narrow(-ish) limitation on people offering it as a service IMHO makes it clear that it's not for maximum user freedom, but for "don't compete with the owning companies service product, we make that incredibly painful, to the point of impossible, compared to everything else"

shiftingleft 6y ago

I haven't informed myself too much so please call out if/where I'm wrong. In my mind the super quick version of this entire thing seems to be: - GPL requires you to publicize your changes if you distribute the software. - SSPL is more or less the same as GPL, but also requires you to publicize your changes if you offer the software as a service to others. To me it really seems as if SSPL is a more modern GPL, fit for the SaaS world. What am I missing?

detaro 6y ago
SSPL: > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. That's a lot more than "your changes" and is impossible to meet if you use any commercial software or a service provided by others pretty much anywhere in your stack.
- shiftingleft 6y ago
  Oh, yeah. I can't imagine publishing the entire source code of your entire stack even being possible. What if you have some 3rd party vendor software in there? Are you required to publish their source too?
- MereInterest 6y ago
  I feel like that's the point. Make free software be attractive to use, then attach riders such that it has network effects. That way, user freedom is maximized. It's taking the long-term view that it is better to work towards having a free software ecosystem, rather than just having a particular software be widely used as soon as possible.
  - detaro 6y ago
    If that would apply to everyone I could see that, but the narrow(-ish) limitation on people offering it as a service IMHO makes it clear that it's not for maximum user freedom, but for "don't compete with the owning companies service product, we make that incredibly painful, to the point of impossible, compared to everything else"