Comment by ocdtrekkie
4 years ago
It's a viral open source license, it literally requires open sourcing code, there's nothing proprietary about it except that we allow a council of elitist snots to decide what is and isn't Open Source(TM), and they have decided Google and Amazon support is more important than viable businesses which are building open source businesses.
The SSPL literally violates Freedom 0.
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
And though we're talking about open source instead of free software, without Freedom 0, the software still might as well be proprietary.
Edit: It also violates Rules 1, 5, 6 & 9 of the OSD. So no, let's not call it "open source"
Could you provide a link to explain how it violates "Rules 1, 5, 6 & 9 of the OSD"? Thanks
Common freaking sense reading.
https://opensource.org/osd
If you can't use the software because you're a cloud provider, that's rules 1, 5 and 6 easy.
If using it forces you to relicense all of your code under the SSPL that's rule 9.
It is well known at this point that the SSPL withdrew their request for recognition to the OSI because they do not meet the rules of the OSD.
2 replies →
This is incorrect, you are free to use the program if you wish, it just also, like the GPL, conveys requirements on open sourcing code you use with it. Open sourcing services without the necessary tools to run it isn't much good, so SSPL ensures the freedom to run your own better than GPL based licenses.
no. get it right. if you are not free to run the program without additional stipulations, especially stipulations that dictate how you license _your_ code, then you are not free to use the program as you wish.
Literally, "as you wish". Stipulations is "as we wish".
And you can read it from the OSI themselves: "The SSPL is Not an Open Source License" https://opensource.org/node/1099
5 replies →
Could Elastic's business model work if lucene were licensed SSPL?
I think it probably could not. And if lucene were licensed GPL, it would not be possible for ElasticSearch to use this new SSPL license, it would be have to be GPL too.
The principle of in the GNU manifesto would be that the software is available for anyone to use in the same way, such that Elastic isn't elevated to not disclose their closed source additions to the software.
At this point, they are directly violating that core principle as well as the uncontroversial OSI directive 6 which copyleftists like myself don't really have a problem with... So I'm not sure what the issue here would be other than you dislike the larger companies' involvement in OSS? I think myself and others would appreciate clarification.