3 ms·

It seems that the new license (SSPL) is probably not open source because of (at least) field of use restrictions: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions

by rwmj 3y ago

It seems that the new license (SSPL) is probably not open source because of (at least) field of use restrictions: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7522/sspl-and-the-open-source-definition https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7522/sspl-and... https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l...

dzogchen 3y ago
Probably? It is a non-free license plain and simple.
- rwmj 3y ago
  Yes you're right, this is the opinion from Fedora's legal counsel: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WE5MOQDOEKBVE5D2MKTEQKXAFHWPYW37/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fe...
  - Takennickname 3y ago
    Is that similar to Red Hats legal counsel?
    - warp 3y ago
      Yes, Richard Fontana is Red Hat's open source lawyer.
    - rwmj 3y ago
      Richard Fontana is also Red Hat's legal counsel yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fontana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fontana
  - Macha 3y ago
    Debian too: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537#15 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537#15
sofixa 3y ago
IMO we need new terms for that kind of stuff. New licenses such as SSPL, BSL FSL are becoming more and more popular, and for very good reason (the conditions today are vastly different than they were 20 years ago when there was no AWS to resell your FOSS to the whole world). They are not "open source" because of the restrictions, but the next closest term that can be applied to them is "source available" which means something different - source code is technically there, eventually, and is not reflective of the reality of those relicensed projects. ElasticSearch, Sentry, etc. are still developed in the open, random people not affiliated with the project can still submit PRs, and anyone not trying to compete publicly with the company behind the project can still do whatever they want.
- ShaneCurcuru 3y ago
  Apparently marketing people who want to sell stuff under those new licenses think "source available" is uncool. Some folks are working on terminology over here, if you're curious. https://github.com/softwarecommons/softwarecommons.com/issues/4 https://github.com/softwarecommons/softwarecommons.com/issue...
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > Apparently marketing people who want to sell stuff under those new licenses think "source available" is uncool. It's not that it's uncool, it's just not true and reflective of reality. There's a world of difference between a .zip on an FTP ("source available because GPL says it must be") and everything still happening in public on GitHub and everyone still being able to contribute if they want to. Both are technically "source available".
    - orthoxerox 3y ago
      And yet a .zip on an FTP might be GPL-compliant whereas a GitHub repo isn't necessarily.
      - sofixa 3y ago
        Exactly! But it's objectively a shit way of sharing code, there is no contributions possible, etc.
ShaneCurcuru 3y ago
SSPL is definitely not open source, it violates #6: https://opensource.org/definition-annotated#6 https://opensource.org/definition-annotated#6 That's the point of open source, and free software in a way as well. Copyleft licenses have restrictions, but as long as you follow those restrictions, you can build whatever you want using the software. SSPL, FSL, BUSL licenses outright prevent you from competing in certain commercial ways, no matter what. Just because most business models don't want to comply with copyleft doesn't mean it's not open source - it just means it doesn't fit your business model.
- bit_flipper 3y ago
  You can also build whatever you want with SSPL, as long as absolutely everything you use to run a service that supports it is also licensed as SSPL. It's not that different from the AGPL in spirit.
  - jrochkind1 3y ago
    > as long as absolutely everything you use to run a service that supports it is also licensed as SSPL. There isn't an SPPL-licensed OS available, is there? Is that not included in "absolutely everything you use to run"? I actually don't know, I haven't tried to make sense of the license. Is there a boundary somehow that you are allowed to run it on a non-SSPL OS? Where is the boundary exactly, I might be using many other open source licensed (or even third-party proprietary licensed tools) in my total ops stack -- which of them don't have to be SPPL?

by rwmj 3y ago

dzogchen 3y ago

Probably? It is a non-free license plain and simple.

rwmj 3y ago
Yes you're right, this is the opinion from Fedora's legal counsel: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WE5MOQDOEKBVE5D2MKTEQKXAFHWPYW37/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fe...
- Takennickname 3y ago
  Is that similar to Red Hats legal counsel?
  - warp 3y ago
    Yes, Richard Fontana is Red Hat's open source lawyer.
  - rwmj 3y ago
    Richard Fontana is also Red Hat's legal counsel yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fontana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fontana
- Macha 3y ago
  Debian too: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537#15 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537#15

sofixa 3y ago

IMO we need new terms for that kind of stuff. New licenses such as SSPL, BSL FSL are becoming more and more popular, and for very good reason (the conditions today are vastly different than they were 20 years ago when there was no AWS to resell your FOSS to the whole world). They are not "open source" because of the restrictions, but the next closest term that can be applied to them is "source available" which means something different - source code is technically there, eventually, and is not reflective of the reality of those relicensed projects. ElasticSearch, Sentry, etc. are still developed in the open, random people not affiliated with the project can still submit PRs, and anyone not trying to compete publicly with the company behind the project can still do whatever they want.

ShaneCurcuru 3y ago
Apparently marketing people who want to sell stuff under those new licenses think "source available" is uncool. Some folks are working on terminology over here, if you're curious. https://github.com/softwarecommons/softwarecommons.com/issues/4 https://github.com/softwarecommons/softwarecommons.com/issue...
- sofixa 3y ago
  > Apparently marketing people who want to sell stuff under those new licenses think "source available" is uncool. It's not that it's uncool, it's just not true and reflective of reality. There's a world of difference between a .zip on an FTP ("source available because GPL says it must be") and everything still happening in public on GitHub and everyone still being able to contribute if they want to. Both are technically "source available".
  - orthoxerox 3y ago
    And yet a .zip on an FTP might be GPL-compliant whereas a GitHub repo isn't necessarily.
    - sofixa 3y ago
      Exactly! But it's objectively a shit way of sharing code, there is no contributions possible, etc.

ShaneCurcuru 3y ago

SSPL is definitely not open source, it violates #6: https://opensource.org/definition-annotated#6 https://opensource.org/definition-annotated#6 That's the point of open source, and free software in a way as well. Copyleft licenses have restrictions, but as long as you follow those restrictions, you can build whatever you want using the software. SSPL, FSL, BUSL licenses outright prevent you from competing in certain commercial ways, no matter what. Just because most business models don't want to comply with copyleft doesn't mean it's not open source - it just means it doesn't fit your business model.

bit_flipper 3y ago
You can also build whatever you want with SSPL, as long as absolutely everything you use to run a service that supports it is also licensed as SSPL. It's not that different from the AGPL in spirit.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  > as long as absolutely everything you use to run a service that supports it is also licensed as SSPL. There isn't an SPPL-licensed OS available, is there? Is that not included in "absolutely everything you use to run"? I actually don't know, I haven't tried to make sense of the license. Is there a boundary somehow that you are allowed to run it on a non-SSPL OS? Where is the boundary exactly, I might be using many other open source licensed (or even third-party proprietary licensed tools) in my total ops stack -- which of them don't have to be SPPL?