5 ms·

See https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up#bounty https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up#b... MongoDB invested sufficie

See https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up#bounty https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up#b... MongoDB invested sufficient resources in drafting an update to the AGPL. That license is called the Server Side Public License. Controversy ensued.

theanonymousone 9mo ago
But SSPL was not approved by OSI. BY "investing" I mean getting it to the same status as AGPL :)
- vanviegen 9mo ago
  Are you suggesting that they should've bribed OSI, or.. ?
  - theanonymousone 9mo ago
    /s would be nice. But just in case, I was suggesting to work closely with OSI and do enough back and forth until a license is agreed upon.
- A1kmm 9mo ago
  If the intent is to stop it being used for a business, that's inherently at odds with part of the OSI's definition: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research". Now technically maybe it could meet the OSD if it required a royalty for hosting the software as a SaaS product, instead of banning that - since it allows "free redistribution", and passes on the same right to anyone receiving it (it is defined in terms of prohibitions on what the licence can restrict, and there is no restriction on charging a set amount for use unless that requires executing a separate licence agreement). Now arguably this is a deficiency in the OSD. But I imagine if you tried to exploit that, they might just update the definition and/or decline to list your licence.
RobotToaster 9mo ago
Iirc the issue with SSPL was that releasing the entire stack under SSPL would basically be impossible, since you wouldn't have the rights to release, for example, the Linux kernel, under it.
- theanonymousone 9mo ago
  Yes. I also read it somewhere that, for example, if you hosted your service on Microsoft IIS, SSPL required you to publish IIS source, regardless of the fact that you don't have it.

theanonymousone 9mo ago

But SSPL was not approved by OSI. BY "investing" I mean getting it to the same status as AGPL :)

vanviegen 9mo ago
Are you suggesting that they should've bribed OSI, or.. ?
- theanonymousone 9mo ago
  /s would be nice. But just in case, I was suggesting to work closely with OSI and do enough back and forth until a license is agreed upon.
A1kmm 9mo ago
If the intent is to stop it being used for a business, that's inherently at odds with part of the OSI's definition: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research". Now technically maybe it could meet the OSD if it required a royalty for hosting the software as a SaaS product, instead of banning that - since it allows "free redistribution", and passes on the same right to anyone receiving it (it is defined in terms of prohibitions on what the licence can restrict, and there is no restriction on charging a set amount for use unless that requires executing a separate licence agreement). Now arguably this is a deficiency in the OSD. But I imagine if you tried to exploit that, they might just update the definition and/or decline to list your licence.

RobotToaster 9mo ago

Iirc the issue with SSPL was that releasing the entire stack under SSPL would basically be impossible, since you wouldn't have the rights to release, for example, the Linux kernel, under it.

theanonymousone 9mo ago
Yes. I also read it somewhere that, for example, if you hosted your service on Microsoft IIS, SSPL required you to publish IIS source, regardless of the fact that you don't have it.