Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by busterarm 1896 days ago
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
1 comments
ocdtrekkie 1896 days ago
The SSPL conveys no new stipulations not permitted by GPL-based licenses, it is just more inclusive in doing so.

If SSPL isn't open source, neither is the GPL.

link
busterarm 1896 days ago
GPL carries no restrictions if you don't distribute the software.

The AGPL on the other hand, was a huge mistake, IMO.

link
ocdtrekkie 1896 days ago
The AGPL was the first step in addressing a critical need to protect the users' right to run the software they use, the SSPL just continues that, as many services wouldn't be runnable without the support code around them.
link
busterarm 1896 days ago
I hear what you're saying, but those whose mission is to encourage open source software don't call the SSPL anything but a source-available, proprietary software license. Like literally the organization that defined what "open source software" is.

While you may disagree, you aren't going to convince me to take your word over theirs, especially when I have come to the same conclusions they did on my own.

link
DetroitThrow 1896 days ago
On a moral principle, AGPL levels the playing field fairly much like the GPL license, just the terms of distribution are updated for an age of software as a service. No one is exempted to the rules in AGPL like SSPL - it is intentionally viral, even if you'd dislike using it in many of your projects (though I think it's fair to say lawyers don't like the ambiguity of the language).

Just like some projects are best under LGPL instead of GPL, AGPL has its place in the toolkit of free software licensing.

link