undefined | Better HN

0 pointscandiddevmike11mo ago0 comments

We need an updated/modernized AGPL that more explicitly delineates what is dependent software. SSPL is probably too far, but it has the right idea.

0 comments

hardwaresofton11mo ago

What would be the goal of this? I ask because I think the nice thing about the current system is that the goals are well represented/easy to sum up and defendable.

What would be the goal of a license between AGPL and SSPL on the spectrum? Seems like such a license would at the very least be non-free? (which is perfectly ok)

candiddevmikeOP11mo ago

Some projects choose AGPL because they incorrectly read that it requires dependencies like calling web services or the underlying configuration management to be open source (such as Minio). SSPL goes beyond this and requires an unsatisfiable amount of dependencies to be open source. There should be a middle ground for folks like Minio and others that want to prevent competitive hosted offerings as that's how they fund the open source version.

Whether this would be considered non-free is up for debate IMO. Why would a license like this be considered non-free when the GPL is free? Is it the scope of it? The OSI would hate it because they represent the organizations this is meant to curtail.

Though most of this is moot if you can just launder code through a LLM and magically remove any licensing for it.

jen2011mo ago

> Why would a license like this be considered non-free when the GPL is free?

Do you consider the SSPL to be free? If so, this would be. If not, it probably would not be. Why does SSPL require unsatisfiable numbers of dependencies by the way? It seems pretty clear to me (though, clearly, not free).

> if you can just launder code through a LLM and magically remove any licensing for it.

If you can actually do this, I look forward to unencumbered Windows-compatible source code having run variously leaked source through copilot.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse