[andlarry]

You can run the SSPL'd code, you can view the SSPL code, if you change the SSPL code then contribute back if you distribute your changes. If you run a service providing the SSPL code, contribute the management layer back as well.

It gets more code into the open, where's the disconnect?

[shawnz]

I am not concerned with the code of other users' management layers. I am concerned with being able to use the code of this product in the way I want to use it. Copyleft is not important to me, I see permissive licensing as being a bigger priority for freedom.

[andlarry]

> they don't have any intention to develop this software without a profit, then they shouldn't have positioned themselves as a free-and-open-source product in the first place.

If something satisfies the four freedoms [0], it is free software.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en

[shawnz]

How does SSPL satisfy GNU's "freedom 0", to run the program for any purpose?

[zaarn]

In the same way the AGPL satisfies it, you can run it for any purpose if you provide the source code to users.

[shawnz]

Well, the linked page indicated that copyleft is something that applies only to distribution and not use, but I guess the AGPL shows that that's not true.

Nonetheless I don't agree with the GNU's claim that copyleft doesn't reduce freedoms. Of course a permissive license provides more freedoms: it's right there in the name

But this issue isn't really about permissive vs copyleft licensing anyway: Had Apache used a copyleft license with Lucene, Elasticsearch would have never existed.

[zaarn]

But Amazon is hardly offering Lucene as a SaaS offering, don't they?