4 ms·

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 mor

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.

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.