3 ms·

> Better or worse with SSPL? Worse, far worse. SSPL is viral to everything that is used to offer your service. "The SSPL is based on the GNU Affero General Pu

> Better or worse with SSPL? Worse, far worse. SSPL is viral to everything that is used to offer your service. "The SSPL is based on the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), with a modified Section 13 that requires that those making SSPL-licensed software available to third-parties (modified or not) as part of a "service" must release the source code for the entirety of the service, including without limitation all "management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available", under the SSPL"

endisneigh 3y ago
In which court case has this claim been tested? Even the AGPL is vague and untested. It’s just the same FUD that AGPL has.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  So you would want to take the risk testing this out with your company? I don't, so ... Closed source, I know the direct legal risks at least. This might not be tested, but no company will want to test it. AGPL is also avoided like the plague by the way by big corps.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    There are already companies using SSPL software in production. In any case, words need interpretation and both SSPL and AGPL are written vaguely.
    - anonzzzies 3y ago
      And how many of those are paying for a commercial license instead of using it under SSPL license? > words need interpretation and both SSPL and AGPL are written vaguely. Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you should take the risk. They are both crap licenses imho and our lawyers are not allowing either of them inside anything. And I hear that from all big corp peeps I speak to; except the same software with a commercial license (which will happen to many in the Redis case and it happened in the Mongo case; it's a good bat to beat money out of companies). The point is that 'vague' is a red flag and unless you have a bone to pick, your law dept is not going to allow it which is the intended reaction to sspl by people licensing that way. You offer dual sspl or commercial; sspl will put you in danger, so you just fork over $.
      - margorczynski 3y ago
        How a company paying for software they use to make money is a bad thing? The open source distribution model was mainly aimed at "normal" users, not multinationals using it to make millions contributing nothing back. If you're a big corp ponny up the cash for the commercial license.
        anonzzzies 3y ago
        > How a company paying for software they use to make money is a bad thing? Where did I say that? I am asking money for the software I make. Of course it's fine. Using SSPL to do it is just not great imho, but it's their right of course.
    - p_l 3y ago
      SSPL and (practical use of) AGPLv3 center around getting companies to cough up money for commercial licensing when due diligence shows up and points out the problem.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        Example?
jeroenhd 3y ago
Ah, but this is why almost all SSPL-licensed software is actually dual-licensed: there's the "paying customer" license, which gets you the software without the virality, and there's the "free user" license, which is the SSPL and makes it impossible to sell the code as a service. The SSPL virality clause is a way to scare away free users (Amazon, GCloud, Hetzner, those kinds of companies) from hosting it as a service. Those companies can still pay for the proprietary license, of course.
- Repulsion9513 3y ago
  > makes it impossible to sell the code as a service But is that the only thing it makes impossible? Doesn't it also make it impossible to use the code in your service? And if you can't use the code then how is it open source now?
  - anonzzzies 3y ago
    That's why it's not an Open Source license, for the reason that it's viral to all your service, not just the SSPL package you are using. So it might as well be closed source really for most companies.
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    Based on my reading of the license, it doesn't seem to. If all you do is forward the request to the server, then maybe. I'm not a lawyer, though. > how is it open source now It's really important to realise it's not: https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l...
  - skeledrew 3y ago
    You can use it in your own service without triggering the clause, as long as that service isn't about providing the product itself to 3rd party users.
    - Repulsion9513 3y ago
      Well now that's just plain false. > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service Which boils down to "if the program is included in your service" > you must make the Service Source Code available via network download ... “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, Which boils down to "you must release not only the program but also everything that interacts with it"

endisneigh 3y ago

In which court case has this claim been tested? Even the AGPL is vague and untested. It’s just the same FUD that AGPL has.

anonzzzies 3y ago
So you would want to take the risk testing this out with your company? I don't, so ... Closed source, I know the direct legal risks at least. This might not be tested, but no company will want to test it. AGPL is also avoided like the plague by the way by big corps.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  There are already companies using SSPL software in production. In any case, words need interpretation and both SSPL and AGPL are written vaguely.
  - anonzzzies 3y ago
    And how many of those are paying for a commercial license instead of using it under SSPL license? > words need interpretation and both SSPL and AGPL are written vaguely. Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you should take the risk. They are both crap licenses imho and our lawyers are not allowing either of them inside anything. And I hear that from all big corp peeps I speak to; except the same software with a commercial license (which will happen to many in the Redis case and it happened in the Mongo case; it's a good bat to beat money out of companies). The point is that 'vague' is a red flag and unless you have a bone to pick, your law dept is not going to allow it which is the intended reaction to sspl by people licensing that way. You offer dual sspl or commercial; sspl will put you in danger, so you just fork over $.
    - margorczynski 3y ago
      How a company paying for software they use to make money is a bad thing? The open source distribution model was mainly aimed at "normal" users, not multinationals using it to make millions contributing nothing back. If you're a big corp ponny up the cash for the commercial license.
      - anonzzzies 3y ago
        > How a company paying for software they use to make money is a bad thing? Where did I say that? I am asking money for the software I make. Of course it's fine. Using SSPL to do it is just not great imho, but it's their right of course.
  - p_l 3y ago
    SSPL and (practical use of) AGPLv3 center around getting companies to cough up money for commercial licensing when due diligence shows up and points out the problem.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Example?

jeroenhd 3y ago

Ah, but this is why almost all SSPL-licensed software is actually dual-licensed: there's the "paying customer" license, which gets you the software without the virality, and there's the "free user" license, which is the SSPL and makes it impossible to sell the code as a service. The SSPL virality clause is a way to scare away free users (Amazon, GCloud, Hetzner, those kinds of companies) from hosting it as a service. Those companies can still pay for the proprietary license, of course.

Repulsion9513 3y ago
> makes it impossible to sell the code as a service But is that the only thing it makes impossible? Doesn't it also make it impossible to use the code in your service? And if you can't use the code then how is it open source now?
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  That's why it's not an Open Source license, for the reason that it's viral to all your service, not just the SSPL package you are using. So it might as well be closed source really for most companies.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  Based on my reading of the license, it doesn't seem to. If all you do is forward the request to the server, then maybe. I'm not a lawyer, though. > how is it open source now It's really important to realise it's not: https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l...
- skeledrew 3y ago
  You can use it in your own service without triggering the clause, as long as that service isn't about providing the product itself to 3rd party users.
  - Repulsion9513 3y ago
    Well now that's just plain false. > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service Which boils down to "if the program is included in your service" > you must make the Service Source Code available via network download ... “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, Which boils down to "you must release not only the program but also everything that interacts with it"