4 ms·

ladies and gentlemen, this is a perfect example of the word-by-word interpretation I was talking about in another subthread:) The SSPL is a perfectly sensible l

ladies and gentlemen, this is a perfect example of the word-by-word interpretation I was talking about in another subthread:) The SSPL is a perfectly sensible license, the only thing it does wrong is to stop SaaS exploitation of software. As the GP said, the OSI is mostly funded by hyperscalers, it's in their vested interests to keep the status quo. Field-of-use restrictions are certainly a useful tool in fighting open source exploitation, and the blanket disallowal of them just plays into the hands of Amazon and whatnot, allowing them to massively profit off everyone else's work. Also, note that the OSI doesn't even follow their own definition by the letter! I quote, Section 13 is very obviously intended to be a restriction against the field of endeavor of offering the software as a service, and thus not in compliance with OSD #6. I don't see how you can change this while maintaining the intent of your license, which is indeed to specifically encumber vendors other than MongoDB who engage in that field of endeavor. So they are basically arguing that a restriction in the license is intended to stop hyperscalers, not that it actually restricts the usage of software in any field! The conflict of interest is blatantly obvious here...

rectang 2y ago
> So they are basically arguing that a restriction in the license is intended to stop hyperscalers, not that it actually restricts the usage of software in any field! Stopping hyperscalers is restricting usage in a field. The primary reason that field-of-use restrictions are part of the OSD is to avoid excluding anyone from the community, and also to avoid fights about whether anyone belongs. Historically, military uses were often excluded in certain licenses — but just what constituted military use could be very hard to determine and potentially could result in endless litigation. Dual-use technology, anyone? The same reasoning applies to hyperscaling. If you allow any restrictions on field of use in "Open Source", then a fundamental guarantee that countless users of OSS have been counting on goes up in smoke. Before, it was software that anyone could use for any purpose. But now, everyone has to wonder, "am I actually allowed to use this Open Source Software"? I firmly agree with these arguments, and I'm glad that the OSI continues to be intellectually and morally consistent in applying them — despite your asserting that they must be corrupt to do so.

rectang 2y ago

> So they are basically arguing that a restriction in the license is intended to stop hyperscalers, not that it actually restricts the usage of software in any field! Stopping hyperscalers is restricting usage in a field. The primary reason that field-of-use restrictions are part of the OSD is to avoid excluding anyone from the community, and also to avoid fights about whether anyone belongs. Historically, military uses were often excluded in certain licenses — but just what constituted military use could be very hard to determine and potentially could result in endless litigation. Dual-use technology, anyone? The same reasoning applies to hyperscaling. If you allow any restrictions on field of use in "Open Source", then a fundamental guarantee that countless users of OSS have been counting on goes up in smoke. Before, it was software that anyone could use for any purpose. But now, everyone has to wonder, "am I actually allowed to use this Open Source Software"? I firmly agree with these arguments, and I'm glad that the OSI continues to be intellectually and morally consistent in applying them — despite your asserting that they must be corrupt to do so.