Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TeMPOraL 2618 days ago
> The short justification given is that even though the GPL doesn't let you do everything, it still doesn't interfere with the 4 essential freedoms that Open Source guarantees. You may or may not agree with that justification.

Wait, what? "Four essential freedoms" are part of FSF philosophy, not Open Source, and GPL is literally the canonical example of a license that guarantees and safeguards them. Many Open Source (not Free Software) licenses do not, in fact, guarantee these freedoms.
2 comments
skybrian 2618 days ago
Yes, the open source definition has its own rules. The one that seems most relevant here is:

"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

"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."

https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

link
danShumway 2618 days ago
I am conflating Open Source and FSF, and I think people are very right to call me out on that. Especially in this context :)

The point I was trying to get at is that regardless of existing debates over the merits of permissive vs. copyleft licenses, neither side of that debate would say that SSPL belongs here.

Permissive license advocates would say that while they dislike GPL's restrictions, adding more restrictions is a bad idea. GPL advocates would say that the point of the GPL is to safeguard the 4 essential freedoms, and SSPL doesn't safeguard them.

Techcrunch is arguing that because there isn't perfect consensus within FOSS, FLOSS, and Open Source communities, that we might as well just turn this whole thing into a free-for-all.

link