Hacker News Reader

Comment by cassonmars | Hacker News Reader

I’m not really buying the notion that SSPL isn’t open source, and the more I read the discourse around free software and the intentions thereof (_user_ freedom), I fail to see how it doesn’t count. I know a lot of folks love to quip that the OSI won’t accept SSPL, but they don’t get to control the use of the term since it was never theirs to begin with, and the source is absolutely open and available. The stipulation is that you can’t pull an Amazon where you get to play “I’m not touching you” games with the software by wrapping the service with value adds via proxy to escape having to contribute back. That feels in line with the intentions that classical distributed software like GPL intended, for that the emergence of SaaS enabled barn-door-wide loopholes.

View on HN

You don't understand the difference of Open Source and Free Software

I believe that they do.

This attack is unwaranted and without substance or explanation.

The way I understand it is that the spirit of Free Software is _user_ freedom - they are free to use the software in any way they wish without restrictions. SSPL meets this bar no differently than any other license with provisions requiring open sourcing code. Open Source, per the OSI, has a particular point of view, in one clause they feel SSPL fails the test: their interpreted ambiguity of what triggers related code to also require the same license felt like it was too infectious — i.e. it could not live harmoniously in an ecosystem of deployed software because of their fear that mere interactions could be considered a triggering event. The reality is that is not true. Not only does the license very clearly outline the condition (basically it eliminates the proxy loophole AWS has historically used), the creators of the license also created an accompanying FAQ providing further clarifications of intent. I find the strong emotional reaction people get when someone asks why SSPL doesn’t count is quite odd. I find the fact that literally nobody (besides the OSI in extremely weak argumentation that the license self-clarifies on, the authors repeatedly clarified on, and the accompanying FAQ removes all doubt) can provide a coherent argument in opposition even more strange. If I want to provide an equally vitriolic remark, I think the reality of why OSI rejected it, and why some people feel so strongly opposed, is ironically the same suspicions they casted on the genesis of the license (MongoDB has a business interest in this license): look at the members of the OSI — there are a number of IaaS people, who of course would be opposed to recognizing a license that stops their grift.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com