3 ms·
There are already companies using SSPL software in production. In any case, words need interpretation and both SSPL and AGPL are written vaguely.
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoHow 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 agoSSPL 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 agoExample?