3 ms·

The problem with these licenses is that they're not open source and they're pretending to be. I doubt you could start a new project and get adoption if you sta

The problem with these licenses is that they're not open source and they're pretending to be. I doubt you could start a new project and get adoption if you start with these licenses. There were problems with some OS projects keeping security / auth stuff out of the main project so that it could be used to drive commercial sales. You can compete on hosting (very hard), support, customization, advanced / narrow features. But it needs to be in alignment with the users / contributors.

move-on-by 6y ago
Would you say that GNU GPL is not open source? Maybe I don't understand the nuances, but I really don't see how these licenses are not much different then a more modern GNU GPL license?
- dfox 6y ago
  The main difference to especially GPL is that GPL does not say anything about how you can use the software (to the extent that it actually explicitly says that there are no restrictions on how you use the software and such restrictions are outside of the scope of it) while SSPL does and does so in a way that causes it to cover random totally unrelated components of your overall infrastructure. This is in direct conflict with zeroth freedom in FSF's "Free software definition". And also at least the reasoning behind all these "anti-cloud-provider licenses" is in conflict with either point 6 or 9 or both of DFSG/OSD (which assumes that the right to use the software in whatever way you see fit is implicit enough such that it does not need to be mentioned more than by what is implied from points 5 and 6).
  - naniwaduni 6y ago
    The main difference between the GPL and these newer licenses is that the free software definitions were written around the existing GPL.
    - dfox 6y ago
      That is certainly true, but there is reason why "the zeroth freedom" is "zeroth" and why GPL is worded the way it is in regards to that. Then there are licenses that completely depend on such a provision being obvious (somewhat notably the original DJB's license terms for qmail and daemontools). Another issue is then whether such license terms are actually enforceable and not in conflict with the copyright(-related) law of given jurisdiction. For example Directive 2009/24/EC explicitly stipulates bunch of things that cannot be part of contract (ie. EULA) and if they are these parts are void, end result of this is that if you legally acquire some software the licensor cannot limit what you will use it for, not even by separate contract. In fact Directive 2009/24/EC gives you as a user exactly the rights that GPL intends to preserve. What it does not do is make excercising these rights possible/efficient/effective, which GPL intends to do (and, well, for typical situation that motivated RMS to start GNU/FSF/GPL the difference is moot, you will end up disassembling the contents of whatever memory the thing runs from because that is the source of truth, not the source code that it was supposedly built from).
    - quadrangle 6y ago
      That is an incidental and unimportant difference, not the main one. The main difference is that the newer licenses reserve certain rights that affect the use of the software. The GPL does not reserve any rights exclusively to anyone. Incidentally, copyright holders are not themselves bound by their own public licenses, and that's why some entities use the GPL against its spirit to effectively reserve the right to make proprietary derivatives (or to license that exclusive right separately), but that's not at all part of the GPL. That's because the copyright holders no way of binding themselves to the license term (the best option for that is to assign the copyright to another entity that is committed to protecting the universal rights for everyone).
      - anticensor 6y ago
        > That's because the copyright holders no way of binding themselves to the license term They can sort of bind themselves, by signing a notarised commitment that has the same terms as the copyright licence.
- Macha 6y ago
  The GPL doesn't give e.g. Linus, a privileged position where he can sell Linux forks but others cannot. For him to do that with a GPL Linux, he'd either need to make everyone sign a CLA saying he owns their contributions, or not accept external contributions. I think it's fair to say Linux would not have taken off so much in that situation. "Fair code" loses the symmetry of licenses, and gives the maintainer an advantage over users. This is especially egregious for services that arguably would not have reached the extent they have now without the comfort and promotion provided by being open source.
- lmm 6y ago
  Look up the Four Freedoms, or the Debian Free Software Guidelines. There's a whole lot of underlying philosophy to what the GPL aims to accomplish.
Udo 6y ago
They're open source, but they're not Open Source. As a user, these projects provide more value to me than closed-source solutions for all the obvious reasons. As a developer, I understand why choosing such a licensing scheme may make a project commercially viable when it otherwise may not be. But these are all immediate practical reasons. The long term result of this is a tremendous legal and technological minefield. One of the strongest arguments of the Free software movement was that it makes software free, not humans. These "open core, single source" projects are not compatible with that vision, they come with all strings attached. The companies putting out these projects will inevitably go under or get acquired. Again, in the short term, as a user I get to keep that software alive for longer than I would have been able to with a closed solution. However, at that point there can be no forks, no new development in public. The source code itself becomes toxic. Similarities between fragments of these projects and any newly developed software in that space will provide fuel for law suits. Given the vastly larger surface area and distribution of this IP, mega corporations who acquired the rights will have an easier time strangling entire market segments indefinitely. On balance, I understand why developers are choosing this. They are tired of providing tools that enable billionaires to exist while they themselves are struggling. But in the long term, there will be more problems on the horizon due to this.

move-on-by 6y ago

Would you say that GNU GPL is not open source? Maybe I don't understand the nuances, but I really don't see how these licenses are not much different then a more modern GNU GPL license?

dfox 6y ago
The main difference to especially GPL is that GPL does not say anything about how you can use the software (to the extent that it actually explicitly says that there are no restrictions on how you use the software and such restrictions are outside of the scope of it) while SSPL does and does so in a way that causes it to cover random totally unrelated components of your overall infrastructure. This is in direct conflict with zeroth freedom in FSF's "Free software definition". And also at least the reasoning behind all these "anti-cloud-provider licenses" is in conflict with either point 6 or 9 or both of DFSG/OSD (which assumes that the right to use the software in whatever way you see fit is implicit enough such that it does not need to be mentioned more than by what is implied from points 5 and 6).
- naniwaduni 6y ago
  The main difference between the GPL and these newer licenses is that the free software definitions were written around the existing GPL.
  - dfox 6y ago
    That is certainly true, but there is reason why "the zeroth freedom" is "zeroth" and why GPL is worded the way it is in regards to that. Then there are licenses that completely depend on such a provision being obvious (somewhat notably the original DJB's license terms for qmail and daemontools). Another issue is then whether such license terms are actually enforceable and not in conflict with the copyright(-related) law of given jurisdiction. For example Directive 2009/24/EC explicitly stipulates bunch of things that cannot be part of contract (ie. EULA) and if they are these parts are void, end result of this is that if you legally acquire some software the licensor cannot limit what you will use it for, not even by separate contract. In fact Directive 2009/24/EC gives you as a user exactly the rights that GPL intends to preserve. What it does not do is make excercising these rights possible/efficient/effective, which GPL intends to do (and, well, for typical situation that motivated RMS to start GNU/FSF/GPL the difference is moot, you will end up disassembling the contents of whatever memory the thing runs from because that is the source of truth, not the source code that it was supposedly built from).
  - quadrangle 6y ago
    That is an incidental and unimportant difference, not the main one. The main difference is that the newer licenses reserve certain rights that affect the use of the software. The GPL does not reserve any rights exclusively to anyone. Incidentally, copyright holders are not themselves bound by their own public licenses, and that's why some entities use the GPL against its spirit to effectively reserve the right to make proprietary derivatives (or to license that exclusive right separately), but that's not at all part of the GPL. That's because the copyright holders no way of binding themselves to the license term (the best option for that is to assign the copyright to another entity that is committed to protecting the universal rights for everyone).
    - anticensor 6y ago
      > That's because the copyright holders no way of binding themselves to the license term They can sort of bind themselves, by signing a notarised commitment that has the same terms as the copyright licence.
Macha 6y ago
The GPL doesn't give e.g. Linus, a privileged position where he can sell Linux forks but others cannot. For him to do that with a GPL Linux, he'd either need to make everyone sign a CLA saying he owns their contributions, or not accept external contributions. I think it's fair to say Linux would not have taken off so much in that situation. "Fair code" loses the symmetry of licenses, and gives the maintainer an advantage over users. This is especially egregious for services that arguably would not have reached the extent they have now without the comfort and promotion provided by being open source.
lmm 6y ago
Look up the Four Freedoms, or the Debian Free Software Guidelines. There's a whole lot of underlying philosophy to what the GPL aims to accomplish.

Udo 6y ago

They're open source, but they're not Open Source. As a user, these projects provide more value to me than closed-source solutions for all the obvious reasons. As a developer, I understand why choosing such a licensing scheme may make a project commercially viable when it otherwise may not be. But these are all immediate practical reasons. The long term result of this is a tremendous legal and technological minefield. One of the strongest arguments of the Free software movement was that it makes software free, not humans. These "open core, single source" projects are not compatible with that vision, they come with all strings attached. The companies putting out these projects will inevitably go under or get acquired. Again, in the short term, as a user I get to keep that software alive for longer than I would have been able to with a closed solution. However, at that point there can be no forks, no new development in public. The source code itself becomes toxic. Similarities between fragments of these projects and any newly developed software in that space will provide fuel for law suits. Given the vastly larger surface area and distribution of this IP, mega corporations who acquired the rights will have an easier time strangling entire market segments indefinitely. On balance, I understand why developers are choosing this. They are tired of providing tools that enable billionaires to exist while they themselves are struggling. But in the long term, there will be more problems on the horizon due to this.