Salta al contenuto principale

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale

My most cancellable open-source opinion is that the difference between the SSPL and the AGPL is mostly academic.

I get disliking the SSPL over a permissive license or even the GPL! I don’t get drawing the line at the AGPL.

send post, turn phone off

in reply to Filippo Valsorda

Jernej Simončič �
mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Jernej Simončič �
• •
Really makes me wonder how to comply with AGPL's presentation clause with Redis…
in reply to Filippo Valsorda

Garrett Wollman
mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Garrett Wollman
• •
I must admit that I've been in the open-source world for 35 years and I've never heard of the former.
in reply to Filippo Valsorda

Hugo 雨果
mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Hugo 雨果
• •
I hadn’t heard of the SSPL before, but a quick read indicates that it’s not an open source license by a long shot (and this also seems to be the common consensus). Just because some paragraphs seem copy pasted from the AGPL doesn’t make it open source. In particular, you must release source for your entire infrastructure for the SSPL, which severely restricts its usability. Eg: you can’t use SSPL code on the grand majority of hosting (or cloud) providers.
in reply to Filippo Valsorda

Lapo Luchini
friendica (DFRN) - Collegamento all'originale
Lapo Luchini
•
When making work-related decisions I simply avoid AGPL stuff in general, especially when a very valid alternative which is BSD licensed exists, so this change seems irrelevant to me as well. 🤷🏻‍♂️
(which was not your main point, but it was kinda implied in the subtext?)
in reply to Filippo Valsorda

gabriele renzi
mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
gabriele renzi
• •

I'm pretty convinced the SSPL hate comes from

* marketing it as OS even tho it's not OSI approved
* being used to relicense previously more permissive code

I think if projects _started_ with the SSPL, nobody would bat an eye

in reply to gabriele renzi

Filippo Valsorda
mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Filippo Valsorda
• •
@riffraff ok but why should I care if it's OSI approved? AGPL is OSI approved and a pain. GPL is OSI approved and if you make a GPL library I can't use it at the same time as a closed source library, even if they are unrelated, right?
@gabriele renzi
in reply to Filippo Valsorda

gabriele renzi
mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
gabriele renzi
• •
cause it's not a usage issue, it's a communication issue: people feel like they're being lied to.
Nobody complains about SQL Server being closed source but if Microsoft started marketing as open source.. people would be upset.
That's my impression of the issue anyway 🤷‍♂️
in reply to Filippo Valsorda

Risotto Bias
mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Risotto Bias
• •

for the business, we've advised teams to not use libraries/programs with either AGPL or SSPL, so that tracks.

they're allowed MIT/BSD/Apache on frontend, and MIT/BSD/Apache/GPL2/GPL3 on backend.

in reply to Filippo Valsorda

Quentin
mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
Quentin
• •
the difference is clear however. The main reason why I would rather have an open source database is to be able to have my database service managed/maintained by third parties and be able to pay anyone else for the maintaince if I'm not happy with the current vendor. This was possible with AGPL as it's an open source license, it's practically impossible with the SSPL and the intent of the license switch is precisely to make sure the copyright holder has monopoly on offering commercial service and maintenance on the software, much like with other non open source licences.
No reason to especially get outraged however by the SSPL, but the bait and switch method that some vendors used here is frustrating.
⇧