Post Au0Ha0s68vZvsMKmES by zstg@fedia.social
(DIR) More posts by zstg@fedia.social
(DIR) Post #Au0BNNI4sYINux4mnI by BrodieOnLinux@mstdn.social
2025-05-12T01:07:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The SSPL is a very interesting license and I see why it's so contentious, it basically opens up the argument of whether or not copyleft taken to it's logical conclusion is a destructive concept, where not just the software and all software it's integrated into must be under the terms of the SSPL, but so to the entire stack used to power the software.Many don't like the viral descriptor used for copyleft licenses but I think in this case it actually is quite apt.
(DIR) Post #Au0DW0uLfNs50tDxaK by mks_h@mstdn.social
2025-05-12T01:31:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux I'm not buying it. Unlike GPL, they just set a condition that's practically impossible to comply with, just so they can offer an alternative license. It isn't a license meant to be followed, it is a license meant to force some users (hosting providers) into a different proprietary license.
(DIR) Post #Au0DldsP434uDSlaaG by BrodieOnLinux@mstdn.social
2025-05-12T01:34:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mks_h This is why the the discussion is really interesting, nowhere in the license does it state that cloud services are banned, this would be a direct violation of OS definition #9, technically it could be followed if you were to build an OS from the ground up under the SSPL, but in practice that's impossible. The question becomes does the intent of the license play into whether or not the license complies with open source.
(DIR) Post #Au0DvXcLBr3dhRyQnA by BrodieOnLinux@mstdn.social
2025-05-12T01:36:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mks_h It's clear from the writings of MongoDB, Elastic and Redis that the goal of their adoption of the SSPL is to explicitly stop AWS and Google Cloud from offering the software as a service but nowhere in the license is this actually stated.
(DIR) Post #Au0EAcJY0eaMbvN7oG by BrodieOnLinux@mstdn.social
2025-05-12T01:39:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mks_h There is only really good thing about the SSPL though, and that's the removal of the CD through the mail loophole of the AGPLv3. The SSPL states "you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge", whereas the AGPLv3 says "through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software" which companies have been known to exploit by providing super annoying ways to get the software
(DIR) Post #Au0Ha0s68vZvsMKmES by zstg@fedia.social
2025-05-12T01:34:09.351Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux they took copyleft so far that they're killing competition now
(DIR) Post #Au0Ha1gn6S80Pa3GFM by BrodieOnLinux@mstdn.social
2025-05-12T02:17:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zstg In short, yes
(DIR) Post #Au12soFvy1dE64wpdI by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-05-12T11:07:24.916642Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux >whether or not copyleft taken to it's logical conclusion is a destructive conceptWriting a proprietary license that cannot be followed is not a logical conclusion.Copyleft licenses do not spread as a virus, as they do not "infect" merely aggregated software live a virus would - rather they spread like a spider plant - if you choose to take a piece, the freedom grows.Although, the SSPL does indeed act like a virus.
(DIR) Post #Au13Ot4LbjC0I7pADQ by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-05-12T11:13:12.952955Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @mks_h >The SSPL states "you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge", whereas the AGPLv3 says "through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software"Ah yes, many such cases of people never actually reading the AGPLv3.https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html>Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.>which companies have been known to exploit by providing super annoying ways to get the softwareThe options for conveying source code for the object code are as below;6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange. b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b. d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.A "super annoying way to get the source code" would not "give anyone who possesses the object code" access to such sources and would be AGPLv3 infringement.
(DIR) Post #Au18BuYBHxvYtKPVrM by BrodieOnLinux@mstdn.social
2025-05-12T12:06:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @mks_h Yes I read the license as well, being required to go through a barely documented email listing and then being shipped a CD through the slowest possible freight would still meet the requirement of the AGPL
(DIR) Post #Au1AKhu9sEPaBd0ods by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-05-12T12:30:52.451372Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @mks_h >being required to go through a barely documented email listing and then being shipped a CD through the slowest possible freight would still meet the requirement of the AGPLNo it would not; "an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source *****from a network server***** at no charge""through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software." is included so that there is no opportunity to play silly games - the software needs to be provided via something customary (a HTML file listing of tar archives etc).It is only if you; "b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium)" can you offer the source code ; "accompanied by a written offer""a barely documented email listing" is something on a remote website and clearly does not accompany the object code and would *not* be a valid written offer.CD's are no longer "customarily used for software interchange", but at least they are at least a "durable physical medium", so arguably it would need to be a DVD or flash drive (but no-one will really care if the actual source code, build scripts and installation information comes on a CD).For object code on a physical product, if the user glances through the manual and sees the written offer and then can actually exercise that written offer and actually receives compliant sources, that is no problem, as someone will always be glad to exercise the written offer and wack it on a file server for sharing over the internet.For businesses that do not include a written offer and instead have a link to some website where there's a hidden form to request the source code, 100% of the time such businesses are intentionally infringing copyright and have no intention of actually providing the source code - at best you'll get a zip of the original sources prior to their modifications, without the build scripts and installation information required to actually build and install the executable(s).
(DIR) Post #Au1AaMxFX8prqOvUlk by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-05-12T12:33:44.144609Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @mks_h Also, there is the AGPLv1, AGPLv2 & AGPLv3 and the -or-later and -only variants.If software is AGPLv3-only, you should write that and if it's AGPLv3-or-later, you should write that (it's extra work, especially for software that is v3 but ambiguous between -only or -or-later, but that way you do not mislead people, as; "If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU Affero General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.").
(DIR) Post #Au1BYY53ISyJj2GuQK by BrodieOnLinux@mstdn.social
2025-05-12T12:44:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @mks_h You want to be pedantic, how about we go with a thumb drive, or how about an SD card
(DIR) Post #Au1CuYQOnUY97OJUkS by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-05-12T12:59:47.360924Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @mks_h Yes, a thumb drive or a SD card would be an acceptable physical distribution medium.It's not pedantic to demand that the users freedom be respected.An email listing is not a valid written offer.A valid written offer would look something like this;`The software included in this product contains copyrighted software that is licensed under the GPLv2-only & GPLv3-or-later. A copy of those licenses is included in this document on page X. You may obtain the complete Corresponding Source code from us for a period of three years after our last shipment of this product and after we no longer support the product, which will be no earlier than 2028-06-01, by sending a money order or check for $5 to:GPL Compliance DivisionOur CompanyAny Town, US 99999Please write “source for product Y version Z” in the memo line of your payment.You may also find a copy of the source at http://www.example.com/sources/Y/Z.This offer is valid to anyone in receipt of this information.`
(DIR) Post #Au1EDmGben1HVMSmem by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-05-12T13:14:28.063443Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @mks_h If you intend to make a video that covers free software licensing, please send what you're going to cover, so I can correct it for you.The spiciest licensing video I can think of would be one pointing out that how the GPLv2 was carefully crafted to forbid tivotization, while the GPLv3 actually permits it for commercial-only hardware (I'll write up all the details for you provided that the video will also be available somewhere else from youtube).