Fabio Manganiello on Nostr: How do you feel about #Redis switch to the #SSPL license - about this license in ...
How do you feel about #Redis switch to the #SSPL license - about this license in general?
As a strong FOSS advocate, I actually see the reasons behind the principles that motivate SSPL. But I’m also wary of pushing too much on the hardcore FOSS side - a Ballmer who decries FOSS as a “communist virus” that should be fought with all of its corporate firepower is always ready to pop up whenever our licenses become too purist.
For context: GPL says that, if you modify/redistribute the binary of some GPL software, then you must also distribute the source code.
AGPL closes the loophole on the service side - if you modify/redistribute a piece of AGPL software, and provide it as a service, then you must also redistribute its source code.
SSPL basically inherits everything from AGPL, but it adds this clause:
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.
Definition of Service Source Code:
“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.
In other words, if you build a service on top of an SSPL service, then your own service’s code must also be distributed with no charge.
Considering that Redis is used basically by every single tech company on earth, this is the kind of thing that may cause an earthquake in the whole industry.
The idealistic side of me stuck in his 20s loves the idea. If you build something on top of open solutions, then your solution must also be open.
In practice, this was exactly Ballmer’s argument for the “FOSS virus” two decades ago.
AGPL in my opinion already does a good job. It forces big corporations to redistribute their own modifications to open services, so they don’t get unfair profits out of somebody else’s work without contributing to it, but it doesn’t put too much its nose into the user’s core business model. SSPL goes one step too far in my opinion - it doesn’t only tell what a company is supposed to do with your code, it also tells them what they are supposed to do with their own code that uses your service.
That’s the kind of hard pull that may break the rope. Especially in the case of products like Redis, the chance of people forking the codebase just before the license change is very high - and apparently it’s already happening. Especially in the case of products like Redis, that before such changes used to have liberal licenses like MIT/BSD. And this easily ends up being a game with no winners.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/redis_changes_license/
As a strong FOSS advocate, I actually see the reasons behind the principles that motivate SSPL. But I’m also wary of pushing too much on the hardcore FOSS side - a Ballmer who decries FOSS as a “communist virus” that should be fought with all of its corporate firepower is always ready to pop up whenever our licenses become too purist.
For context: GPL says that, if you modify/redistribute the binary of some GPL software, then you must also distribute the source code.
AGPL closes the loophole on the service side - if you modify/redistribute a piece of AGPL software, and provide it as a service, then you must also redistribute its source code.
SSPL basically inherits everything from AGPL, but it adds this clause:
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.
Definition of Service Source Code:
“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.
In other words, if you build a service on top of an SSPL service, then your own service’s code must also be distributed with no charge.
Considering that Redis is used basically by every single tech company on earth, this is the kind of thing that may cause an earthquake in the whole industry.
The idealistic side of me stuck in his 20s loves the idea. If you build something on top of open solutions, then your solution must also be open.
In practice, this was exactly Ballmer’s argument for the “FOSS virus” two decades ago.
AGPL in my opinion already does a good job. It forces big corporations to redistribute their own modifications to open services, so they don’t get unfair profits out of somebody else’s work without contributing to it, but it doesn’t put too much its nose into the user’s core business model. SSPL goes one step too far in my opinion - it doesn’t only tell what a company is supposed to do with your code, it also tells them what they are supposed to do with their own code that uses your service.
That’s the kind of hard pull that may break the rope. Especially in the case of products like Redis, the chance of people forking the codebase just before the license change is very high - and apparently it’s already happening. Especially in the case of products like Redis, that before such changes used to have liberal licenses like MIT/BSD. And this easily ends up being a game with no winners.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/redis_changes_license/