MongoDB is the reason I don't contribute (outside of work) to any copyleft project that asks for copyright assignment anymore.
MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
221–230 of 231 posts
Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#222MongoDB, Redis, CockroachDB and anyone else interested should join efforts with Kyle and adopt his similar to SSPL, but neutral and cleaner copyleft Shared Component License [1]. This should help clear up any confusion people have and avoid providing excuses for removing packages due to the license. [1] https://github.com/kemitchell/shared-component-license
Thanks for this mention! However, folks should be aware that it's very early days for that form. I only published my draft this week. I'm receiving first feedback now. Several commits to master per day.
That being said, I strongly recommend that folks interested in the license watch the repo, release-only if they prefer. I will tag prereleases.
Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#223MongoDB, Redis, CockroachDB and anyone else interested should join efforts with Kyle and adopt his similar to SSPL, but neutral and cleaner copyleft Shared Component License [1]. This should help clear up any confusion people have and avoid providing excuses for removing packages due to the license. [1] https://github.com/kemitchell/shared-component-license
That's not a free software license though.
I'm not sure what reason you have in mind.
FSF and OSI are split on "private changes": whether a copyleft license can require distribution of changes. OSI approved Plan 9, RPL, and Open Watcom, all of which require this in at least some scenarios. FSF rejects those license.
I don't understand why FSF takes that position. More on that: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/09/17/Private-Changes.ht...
Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bruce Perens feels “it manifests a lot of ignorance about Open Source and utter contempt for our community.” https://opensource.org/LicenseReview122018
That Perens quote refers specifically to Sunil Deshpande's article about the SSPL and Open Source, not to the SSPL itself. But it's not far off either way… The reaction on the OSI's license-review list is more varied. Lawrence Rosen and Ken Mitchell argue that the license should be approved. Everyone else is criticizing that it clearly violates the spirit of Open Source software (no discrimination against fields of e…
I also criticize the way SSPL was drafted. The legal talent they have can do far better. The choice to patch AGPL cuffed them.
Here's me announcing an attempt at a plain-language, SSPL-style license from scratch:
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/01/12/Shared-Component-L...
The latest license text is at:
Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#225Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#226Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#227Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you can. You have obligations if you distribute it. Even the AGPL simply gives you obligations. There have been arguments about whether the AGPL is discriminatory, and those have been mostly waved away (wrongly, i think, but c'est la vie). In that vein, SSPL is arguably a free license. It simply changes when obligations to distribute source occur. Compare to the the commons clause, which is not a free license -…
I completely agree. I would only add that there have also been arguments about whether GPLv2 is discriminatory, though they also feel long behind us now. In case it's interesting, here's my standard reference link on nondiscrimination under OSD 5 and 6: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul...
There is always a case in which all license will be discriminatory when it comes to "specific fields of endeavor". If the endeavor is to break copyright then a copyright license can't permit that. To take a example, permissive licenses do not allow someone to take full ownership of the copyright of someone else work.
As such the Open Source Definition with the phrase "specific field of endeavor" is limited to cover areas which don't involve copyright law. For many reasons, including copyright law itself, it can not grant that which would be the most broad definition of nondiscrimination.
Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#229MongoDB is the reason I don't contribute (outside of work) to any copyleft project that asks for copyright assignment anymore.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
This is not why most projects do copyright assignment.
I'd trust very few entities to have pure intentions when asking for this.
Re: MongoDB removed from RHEL 8 beta due to license
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
This is not why most projects do copyright assignment. I'd trust very few entities to have pure intentions when asking for this.
Companies that unify intellectual property in projects under their stewardship typically take contributor license agreements, rather than assignments. For more on that:
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/01/06/CLAs-Are-Not-a-Sha...