zlacker

>>gnufx+(OP)
He laments that users "don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest", but wasn't this the point of Open Source as compared to Free Software, to refocus the messaging from the user's freedoms to the economic benefit for companies?

The Free Software Definition mentions "user" 22 times and "freedom" 79 times, whereas the Open Source Definition has zero occurrences of these terms. It doesn't seem surprising that the user freedom message isn't getting through if you completely scrub it from the messaging.

>>ptx+a5
IMO, the SSPL solves this. If you only use/develop FOSS stuff as RMS intended, you can use SSPL without an issue. Don't use or develop FOSS everywhere? Pay for a separate license. It's unfortunate that OSI and friends are OK with the AGPL but not the SSPL, and IMO shows that they think the status quo is OK when clearly it's sustainable for FOSS creators.

>>candid+Vj
The SSPL is notable in that it effectively forbids hosting the software to be used by other people.

To comply you must provide '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'

A plain reading of this means that for a standard web app you would need to release not just the application code, but also code for the web server you are using, the os you are using, its drivers, device firmware, the os/firmware for your routers, your deployment stack, and probably more I'm missing. You better not trigger a deployment from a Windows computer using Chrome!

Even if I'm using open-source stuff for all of that it would need to have licenses compatible with SSPL such that I can relicense and release them all under the SSPL. I believe GPL is incompatible so that counts out most software I would use to host a webapp.

To me it seems like a fundamentally unreasonable license because for all practical purposes it is entirely impossible to comply with section 13.