John Lusk
@mawhrin @ocdtrekkie @ariadne @wwahammy @scott @msw
«our long-standing partnership with Microsoft will continue to support organizations...»
So... I'm not up to speed. Do MS and Redis have an explicit (formal) side agreement that has MS shipping $$ to Redis and Redis declining to sue under SSPL? (Like, "Redis licenses Redis to MS under these specific terms, etc. etc.")
Because, otherwise, wouldn't SSPL also apply to MS?
And if I, as pee-wee cloud services offerer, use Redis, am I SOL...
1/
Theuni
@tarheel @mawhrin @ocdtrekkie @ariadne @wwahammy @scott @msw -> no, because the requirement is not "be open source", the requirement is "everything from you and everything you use from others has to be SSPL". It's a poison pill. And those kinds of things should IMHO not be allowed from a legal perspective.
John Lusk
@mawhrin @ocdtrekkie @ariadne @wwahammy @scott @msw
...unless I either open-source pretty much my entire stack or negotiate my own license agreement with Redis?
Is that the picture?
2/2
Theuni
@Atemu Hmm. "If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE". All of our stuff is open source and I'd love that to be viable for us for the SSPL. However, we're in touch with one of the lawyers analyzing the SSPL language and he came to the same conclusion a while ago. https://www.digitale-nachhaltigkeit.unibe.ch/unibe/portal/fak_naturwis/a_dept_math/c_iinfamath/abt_digital/content/e90973/e1045995/e1046107/e1092040/e1092047/07SimonSchlauriRonzaniSchlauri-SSPL_ger.pdf (Slide 4)...
Atemu
It's a small but important distinction:
The requirement is to provide the source code according to the SSPL's terms, not to relicense to SSPL.
It's just like the GPL but attempts to infect surrounding services.
Any argument against the SSPL's infectiousness can be applied just the same for the regular old GPL, just in a different context.
(Well apart from the elephant in the room: Whether the license can actually work the way it's intended to or not.)
Theuni
@Atemu I'll ask him to consider again whether non-SSPL open source licensing could be considered valid. MongoDB did not answer our requests for clarification on this which is also a signal to me that this is intended as a FUD license.
The (A)GPL is much much more limited in that way as it only cares about the code itself and not the surrounding eco system.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.