3 ms·

I don't think SSPL is worse than AGPL in practice, in fact it is better. The SSPL is effectively a stronger AGPL. This makes it non-OSI-approved, but the licen

I don't think SSPL is worse than AGPL in practice, in fact it is better. The SSPL is effectively a stronger AGPL. This makes it non-OSI-approved, but the licence itself is completely fine. The major difference is that the SSPL also mandates that you release everything needed to run the software, not just the software itself. For reference, it's worth to read the OSI's blogpost about this, it's quite illuminating: https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license/ https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l... It's also worth mentioning that most of the attacks against the GPL, AGPL and SSPL are done by corporate shills, and OSI is also full of them. They pretend to support "non-discrimination of fields of endeavour" but they are undermining free software to SaaS-ify it. Don't fall for the "SSPL is not open source" propaganda.

RobotToaster 3y ago
>The major difference is that the SSPL also mandates that you release everything needed to run the software Which makes it incompatible with little things like the linux kernel, since you don't have the licence to release it as SSPL
fweimer 3y ago
The additional restrictions in the SSPL apply also to unmodified versions. This is very different from the AGPL, which does not impose any additional over the burdens over the GPL if you use an unmodified version of the software, even if you use that to offer network services. This provides a very clear path to AGPL compliance for most users, certainly those who get their software from a GNU/Linux distribution. (I missed that aspect of the AGPL for quite some time, admittedly.) The SSPL, in contrast, applies to unmodified versions of the software. This means that even if you get SSPL software from someone who publishes the sources, you have to take additional steps for license compliance if you want to use the software. Given that the SSPL requires publishing things like the source code for NIC and network switch firmware (both are obviously required for offering your network service …), I just don't see how this license is useful besides being deceptive. The BSL with its typical field-of-use restrictions achieve the same thing in a much more direct manner.
cxr 3y ago
> most of the attacks against the GPL, AGPL and SSPL are done by corporate shills, and OSI is also full of them To underscore something important in this discussion: there is no "The GPL is Not an Open Source License" post on the OSI blog, nor will there ever be one. GPL and AGPL have OSI approval.

RobotToaster 3y ago

>The major difference is that the SSPL also mandates that you release everything needed to run the software Which makes it incompatible with little things like the linux kernel, since you don't have the licence to release it as SSPL

fweimer 3y ago

The additional restrictions in the SSPL apply also to unmodified versions. This is very different from the AGPL, which does not impose any additional over the burdens over the GPL if you use an unmodified version of the software, even if you use that to offer network services. This provides a very clear path to AGPL compliance for most users, certainly those who get their software from a GNU/Linux distribution. (I missed that aspect of the AGPL for quite some time, admittedly.) The SSPL, in contrast, applies to unmodified versions of the software. This means that even if you get SSPL software from someone who publishes the sources, you have to take additional steps for license compliance if you want to use the software. Given that the SSPL requires publishing things like the source code for NIC and network switch firmware (both are obviously required for offering your network service …), I just don't see how this license is useful besides being deceptive. The BSL with its typical field-of-use restrictions achieve the same thing in a much more direct manner.

cxr 3y ago

> most of the attacks against the GPL, AGPL and SSPL are done by corporate shills, and OSI is also full of them To underscore something important in this discussion: there is no "The GPL is Not an Open Source License" post on the OSI blog, nor will there ever be one. GPL and AGPL have OSI approval.