Hacker News Reader

Comment by Reelin | Hacker News Reader

It seems there are indeed serious issues with SSPLv1 that I was unaware of. That being said, the loophole in the AGPL that they are attempting to address is also a serious issue. The rewording in v2

> “storage software and hosting software” changed to “host orchestration software”

seems to be fairly reasonable though, unless I've misunderstood things once again?

> But note that not even MongoDB, the project that the SSPL came from, is using v2 at the moment.

From the page you linked,

> If this version is approved by OSI, we plan to apply it to the next release of our MongoDB software, which is currently available under version 1.0.

so it seems they really do just want to address the current loophole in the AGPL.

View on HN

>> “storage software and hosting software” changed to “host orchestration software”

>seems to be fairly reasonable though, unless I've misunderstood things once again?

It's better, though note that the terms in the list referenced there aren't strictly defined.

>> If this version is approved by OSI, we plan to apply it to the next release of our MongoDB software, which is currently available under version 1.0.

>so it seems they really do just want to address the current loophole in the AGPL.

Sure, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that. But the fact that they haven't switched over by now signals to me that they're not yet confident in the newer version of the license; if they're not, I can't say I am either.

And it's worth noting that SSPL v2 was withdrawn from the OSI review process back in March: https://opensource.org/LicenseReview032019

This is all really disappointing - they ought to mention it up front in their FAQ. I hope they (or someone else) submits a v3 with tighter definitions that can close the SaaS proprietary source code loophole without introducing a compromising level of overreach or ambiguity.

> the fact that they haven't switched over by now signals to me that they're not yet confident in the newer version of the license; if they're not, I can't say I am either.

Agreed; I wouldn't want to make use of it either until the dust is well settled.

I recommend taking a look at the API Copyleft License https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/mast...

> overreach or ambiguity

Specifically overreach ambiguity and as mentioned compatibility with other popular copyleft licenses are valid reasons for me.

It seems reasonable for anyone that cares to switch to AGPL now and to an compatible stronger successor, perhaps SSPLv2 but it will take a bit of time. It's great that some are starting to test this.

Remember when there was a ban on any type of open source? We now have to take another step to the left together. The only ones that would truly miss out are the ones serving proprietized and not just using community software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com