3 ms·

I've read the arguments, but those arguments apply equally to the AGPL, which would not be approved by the OSI today. SSPL has no field of use restrictions, it

I've read the arguments, but those arguments apply equally to the AGPL, which would not be approved by the OSI today. SSPL has no field of use restrictions, it simply has restrictions that require viral open sourcing. And there's nothing slanderous about pointing out that, yeah, Amazon pays out a significant portion of the OSI's entire operating budget. (edit: Actually FWIW, Amazon is apparently not currently on the Sponsors page... maybe they didn't renew this year. But they used to be at the top.)

poincaredisk 2y ago
>I've read the arguments, but those arguments apply equally to the AGPL How? You can use AGPL code to develop nuclear weapons and murder drones, as long as you publish the code.
- ocdtrekkie 2y ago
  You can also use SSPL code to develop nuclear weapons and murder drones, as long as you publish the code! Additionally, you can also use SSPL code in a business offering that code as a service... as long as you publish all of the code for that service!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - poincaredisk 2y ago
    Oh. I've read more about SSPL and I actually like it. I don't see how it's not open source. I guess OSI, Red Hat and Debian know better than me, I'll have to check their reasoning. Though you are right that I don't see how it's fundamentally different from AGPL. Thanks for correcting me! >Specifically, this is discriminatory against users of the software that use proprietary software within their stack, (From wikipedia) That's... the point.
    - rectang 2y ago
      The difference between the AGPL and the SSPL is that while both relate to software which the end user interacts with over a network, the AGPL places no restrictions on what the software is used for, while the SSPL encumbers commercial SAAS. This is a field of use restriction, and it is indeed the point of the SSPL! But field of use restrictions are disallowed under OSI's Open Source Definition — because it's critically important that Open Source software must be usable for any purpose to avoid uncertainty and exclusion, as explained elsethread [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41691577#41694133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41691577#41694133
      - ocdtrekkie 2y ago
        You can't just keep claiming there's a field of use restriction when there isn't. It merely conveys a requirement for open sourcing dependencies required for operating services, an entirely noble copyleft behavior. Any business which isn't exploiting open source in order to benefit proprietary source won't even be phased by this. It's simply a requirement to open source your stuff, which the OSI would support if supporting open source was actually their mission.
        rectang 2y ago
        OK, I believe I understand the distinction you're making here. I had to fight my way through your aspersions about the motivations of the people who take part in OSI license discussions, some of whom I am personally acquainted with. I consider the notion that they are driven by allegiance to Amazon and the like risible, although you don't have to take my word for it (and shouldn't, it's an argument from [negligible] authority). The idea is that a "field-of-use restriction" should deny a license grant based on field-of-use, as opposed to granting a right to users to obtain source code based on field-of-use. This seems like a technicality when the obvious effect is to cripple commercial competition which some see as illegitimate and advantage certain other parties — something completely at odds with the idea that Open Source software needs to be available for any use, deeply cherished by myself and many other FOSS advocates.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

poincaredisk 2y ago

>I've read the arguments, but those arguments apply equally to the AGPL How? You can use AGPL code to develop nuclear weapons and murder drones, as long as you publish the code.

ocdtrekkie 2y ago
You can also use SSPL code to develop nuclear weapons and murder drones, as long as you publish the code! Additionally, you can also use SSPL code in a business offering that code as a service... as long as you publish all of the code for that service!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  Oh. I've read more about SSPL and I actually like it. I don't see how it's not open source. I guess OSI, Red Hat and Debian know better than me, I'll have to check their reasoning. Though you are right that I don't see how it's fundamentally different from AGPL. Thanks for correcting me! >Specifically, this is discriminatory against users of the software that use proprietary software within their stack, (From wikipedia) That's... the point.
  - rectang 2y ago
    The difference between the AGPL and the SSPL is that while both relate to software which the end user interacts with over a network, the AGPL places no restrictions on what the software is used for, while the SSPL encumbers commercial SAAS. This is a field of use restriction, and it is indeed the point of the SSPL! But field of use restrictions are disallowed under OSI's Open Source Definition — because it's critically important that Open Source software must be usable for any purpose to avoid uncertainty and exclusion, as explained elsethread [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41691577#41694133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41691577#41694133
    - ocdtrekkie 2y ago
      You can't just keep claiming there's a field of use restriction when there isn't. It merely conveys a requirement for open sourcing dependencies required for operating services, an entirely noble copyleft behavior. Any business which isn't exploiting open source in order to benefit proprietary source won't even be phased by this. It's simply a requirement to open source your stuff, which the OSI would support if supporting open source was actually their mission.
      - rectang 2y ago
        OK, I believe I understand the distinction you're making here. I had to fight my way through your aspersions about the motivations of the people who take part in OSI license discussions, some of whom I am personally acquainted with. I consider the notion that they are driven by allegiance to Amazon and the like risible, although you don't have to take my word for it (and shouldn't, it's an argument from [negligible] authority). The idea is that a "field-of-use restriction" should deny a license grant based on field-of-use, as opposed to granting a right to users to obtain source code based on field-of-use. This seems like a technicality when the obvious effect is to cripple commercial competition which some see as illegitimate and advantage certain other parties — something completely at odds with the idea that Open Source software needs to be available for any use, deeply cherished by myself and many other FOSS advocates.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]