3 ms·

This would've been nice. I think we are not far from the OSI having to recognize that SSPL is the future whether they like it or not, and possibly moving from o

This would've been nice. I think we are not far from the OSI having to recognize that SSPL is the future whether they like it or not, and possibly moving from obstructionist to a more constructive point, where they help evolve the SSPL to address their concerns, while recognizing that it is a copyleft open source license.

josephcsible 6y ago
A license doesn't get to be called open source just because it's popular. Look how popular Windows is. Is it open source too?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  The only thing that differs between SSPL and the AGPL in terms of being open source or not is that one particular group of people has decided one is Open Source(TM) and one is not.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    > one particular group of people I assume you mean the OSI. But it's not just them with a problem with the SSPL. Debian and Fedora both reject it too, independently, for being non-free.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      But it is free. It solely conveys an expectation that you also release related tooling for free as well. If it's not a free license, the AGPL isn't either.
      - josephcsible 6y ago
        What's your definition of "free"? Because it's certainly not the same as the FSF's.