Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by amadvance 407 days ago
Still, it's strange to me that the GPL is considered OpenSource while the SSPL is not. When the GPL was first released, its requirement that all linked modules be GPL-licensed wasn't so different from what the SSPL enforces today at the network level. I see the SSPL as analogous to the GPL, and the AGPL as analogous to the LGPL, essentially relaxing the requirements either on linking (in the case of the LGPL versus GPL) or on network interactions (in the case of the AGPL versus SSPL)
2 comments
dragonwriter 407 days ago
> When the GPL was first released, its requirement that all linked modules be GPL-licensed wasn't so different from what the SSPL enforces today at the network level

The “all linked modules” thing does not appear in the text of the GPL as first released or any subsequent version (it is in some versions of the GPL FAQ, but arguably is contradictory to the text of the corresponding license in view of copyright law.)

But that at least was tied to a (even if actually wrong) remotely defensible as good faith interpretation of the boundary of a single work under copyright, and not an attempt to impose licensing terms on unrelated works that merely happened to be used together. And, also, was restricted to a document that purported to interpret the license in th context of the law, even if it arguably did so incorrectly, and not part of the license itself.

link
fc417fc802 407 days ago
Sure, I think your analogy is a reasonable point. There are certainly many different places where the boundary around a functional unit could reasonably be drawn as it pertains to copyright law. There's nothing wrong with having a variety of available choices in that regard when selecting a license.

I think I agree with your analogy. It does sort of seem like SSPL is closing a loophole in the AGPL (which was itself arguably closing a loophole in the GPL). At the same time I don't inherently see an issue with drawing a line about what the ideology does and doesn't include.

One way of interpreting it is that it's a choice that the ideological tenants can include users directly interacting with your program via the network but can't extend to backend network interactions.

Another way of interpreting it is that backend network interactions aren't the issue but rather constraints based around the interpretation of the purpose of a program. The GPL and AGPL arguably regulate based on technical distinctions - is the functional unit constructed using a specific component, is the functional unit what's driving the user interaction. The SSPL on the other hand (specifically the final version that was proposed before being withdrawn [0]) contains the phrases "the primary purpose or features of such Software As A Service" and "the value of the software component of such Software As A Service".

Yet another way of interpreting it is that the current religious leaders just don't want to poke that particular hornets nest right now. That pragmatically speaking the SSPL appears to have a disproportionate impact on an awfully specific business model whereas the existing licenses are much closer to neutral (at least in that regard).

If the boundary is truly being drawn in the wrong place presumably that will be corrected if the error is clearly demonstrated. If the SSPL or something substantially similar becomes widely adopted and ends up facilitating the goals of the ideology in practice then people might be convinced to update their opinions. Even if they don't, as long as user needs are being met I'm not sure it matters what the OSI or FSF or whoever else puts on their list. False negatives (ie omissions) don't seem particularly important here while false positives (ie erroneous inclusions) do.

[0] https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

link