3 ms·

> but it's just not currently approved: This makes it sound like it's just a matter of resources or time to just get it approved, which is misleading. Field of

by Macha 3y ago

> but it's just not currently approved: This makes it sound like it's just a matter of resources or time to just get it approved, which is misleading. Field of use restrictions go against most definitions of open source or free software, and it was on track to be rejected by OSI until they withdrew from the process. https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l... Similarly, Debian also rejected classifying it as open.

pizza234 3y ago
Right, thanks for the correction. For reference, the v2 withdrawal thread is here: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/003989.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o.... With the current expectations, no license will solve the problem of making software open and prevent companies from "stealing" it. The "stealing" point is not necessarily my opinion; just pointing that there's always noise about it.