Answer
@drewdevault I don’t disagree that is arguable semantically, but do you personally believe it would hold up legally?
@glacials @drewdevault Yeah, I suspect that *in practice*, if a company released:
1. The modified work,
2. Source and config for all custom supporting infrastructure, under the SSPL, and
3. A _listing_ of all of the relevant surrounding infrastructure, all of which is also open source and freely available,
...then the licensor would have a very hard time convincing a court that a violation had taken place.
I personally wouldn't take that chance, but I personally am also not a multi-billion dollar corporation.
Indeed the SSPL say explicitly "all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available"
You wouldn't need to release unmodified GPL code under SSPL just because you use it to provide a SSPL software as a service as long you release under such license all the code you write.
A license cannot request you to violate the copyright of third parties, so such interpretation would be bongus in court.
@glacials @drewdevault@fosstodon.org
