On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 22:03:41 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > Hi all, Hello Paul! > > I noticed MongoDB are pushing a new license that tries to be like the > AGPL but more expansive in what software it covers and more expansive > in what activities trigger the clauses within it. This does not sound good... > > They have posted to the OSI license review mailing list: > > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003603.html > > For your convenience, I have included a full copy of the mail below, > which includes a justification section as well as full license terms. [...] Thanks. Apart from the use of Unicode quotes (in stead of ASCII quotes), and from the drop of the preamble and instructions for use, the SSPL v1 differs from the GNU GPL v3 only in the content of Section 13 (plus references to the license name and steward, of course). Sections 13 reads: > 13. Offering the Program as a Service. > > 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. Making the functionality of the > Program or modified version available to third parties as a service > includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with > the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through > a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or > primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, > or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose > of the Software or modified version. > > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program > or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs > that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a > service, including, without limitation, management software, user > interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, > monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting > software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service > using the Service Source Code you make available. My personal [opinion] on the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is already known here on debian-legal: I think it is a troublesome license that fails to meet the DFSG. Debian [FTP Masters think] it is OK, but [I disagree] with their conclusion. [Other] [people] share some of my concerns. [opinion]: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html> [FTP Masters think]: <https://bugs.debian.org/495721#17> [I disagree]: <https://bugs.debian.org/495721#28> [Other]: <http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl> [people]: <http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2008/webapps#memberships> As far as the SSPL v1 is concerned, I personally think that it is even worse than the GNU AfferoGPL v3. The SSPL v1 includes an even stronger use restriction, extended to the unmodified work too, and reaching unrelated software (backup software??? hosting software??? what does this mean, anyway?). It fails to clarify the ambiguity of the term "user": if I get an "access denied" error page through a browser, am I a user of the web application? of the database server? ... I think the SSPL v1 fails to meet the DFSG. I hope MongoDB, Inc. will change its mind and stop going down this slippery slope called "Let's restrict it a little bit more!". A slippery slope started by the FSF with the GPLv3 → AfferoGPLv3 progression... I wish MongoDB could be re-licensed under the plain GNU GPL... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp1BX4fp9O6m.pgp
Description: PGP signature