> If you can't use the software because you're a cloud provider, that's rules 1, 5 and 6 easy.
I may be mistaken but I thought cloud-providers can use it and offer it for others to use as well, they just can't charge for that. But I may be wrong.
by definition sspl only qualifies as a source available license but it restricts stuff in so many ways that it is basically propriatary, even for normal uses.
btw. even open source licenses are not free or libre, they also restrict usages, just not as hard as most source available licenses.
source code is not open if I'm restricted to use it in most cases without making everything open, it's available of course, but that limits my use case by a huge margin. even open source (osi) licenses do that, but in a way more fair manner, which does not discriminiate usages.
heck I'm not even a fan of gpl 3 (especially agpl) , because I think they also discrimnate usages and are also poorly written (too much stuff that is hard to understand without a lawyer)
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.
> If you can't use the software because you're a cloud provider, that's rules 1, 5 and 6 easy.
I may be mistaken but I thought cloud-providers can use it and offer it for others to use as well, they just can't charge for that. But I may be wrong.
by definition sspl only qualifies as a source available license but it restricts stuff in so many ways that it is basically propriatary, even for normal uses. btw. even open source licenses are not free or libre, they also restrict usages, just not as hard as most source available licenses. source code is not open if I'm restricted to use it in most cases without making everything open, it's available of course, but that limits my use case by a huge margin. even open source (osi) licenses do that, but in a way more fair manner, which does not discriminiate usages. heck I'm not even a fan of gpl 3 (especially agpl) , because I think they also discrimnate usages and are also poorly written (too much stuff that is hard to understand without a lawyer)