@clacke
> That's your whole VM right there, and even stuff outside it

I have some sympathy for the goals of a license that says 'if you want to use our software on your server, you have to release the code source of all the software on your server under any FSF or OSI approved licenses'.
But the devil is in the details. Where does software end and sensitive data begin? If you set out to enforce compliance with such a license, how could you know you'd succeeded without full server access?

@strypey The question of where code ends and data begins, and whether code can be sensitive data, is an interesting one, and I wish there were a recording of @cwebber 's 2019.copyleftconf.org/schedule… available. It was a good talk.
@strypey Also presented at #copyleftconf2019 was the https://github.com/holochain/cryptographic-autonomy-license/blob/master/README.md , which enforces user data autonomy as a licensing condition.

I have even more sympathy for its goals and likely rationale, but it was controversial enough, albeit together with allegedly sneaky tactics to get it approved as open source, that Bruce Perens quit OSI over it, saying "We've gone the wrong way with licensing":

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/03/osi_cofounder_resigns/
@strypey Even Bradley Kuhn of @conservancy had strong words about the CAL, not so much about the scope of copyleft, but more about the drafting process, going into the same concerns I referred to back in https://libranet.de/display/0b6b25a8-135e-6358-eea7-e4d833239270 , that a new category of license should be drafted in a very transparent and deliberative manner:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-January/004616.html

> the policy implications of OSI volunteers interactively drafting a very novel copyleft license with a for-profit entity's lawyer and then approving it quickly really concern me

@clacke

@notclacke The #CAL is another one I haven't look at the details of yet. One concern I have with over-enthusiastic extendion of #copyleft beyond what the #AGPL does (one that Perens and Kuhn might share) is that it could make copyleft licenses even scarier to company lawyers, increasing the fervency of the anti-copyleft PR messaging many companies target at younger developers.

@clacke @conservancy

@strypey I have this concern too. The SSPL is pretty much what the FUD 20 years ago pretended the GPL is.

@clacke @strypey if I may dredge up an old thread, do you have any updated views on 's ?

The licence itself seems to be an amalgam of an improvement over AGPL w.r.t data and LGPL-like permissions for parts of the subject of the . Mostly good, the only gripe might be that it will take lawyers to confirm if it is trouble-free for open projects to use it or Holochain and the like. But that seems "just" 1 "autonomy audit" away.

Follow

@clacke @strypey in hindsight, the drama over the drafting process of the seems to be fear of it being more effective in promoting than or s. You did voice concerns about FUD, but wouldn't you say that FUD against GPL failed (people serious about software were not all sheeple)? And I bet the people behind that FUD themselves free-loaded off GPL'ed software (and stayed silent on the more effective AGPL - probably stayed silent on the CAL too?).

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.