Fedora Decides To Not Allow SSPLv1 Licensed Software Into Its Repositories

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Fedora Decides To Not Allow SSPLv1 Licensed Software Into Its Repositories

Back in October, MongoDB announced the Server Side Public License v1 (SSPLv1) as their new license moving forward for this document-oriented database server over their existing AGPL code. SSPL was met with much controversy upon its unveiling and Fedora's legal team has now ruled it an invalid free software license for packaged software in its repositories...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Fedora-No-SSPLv2-License

[macemoneta]

So, rpmfusion then.

[Redfoxmoon]

Fork incoming in 3... 2... 1...

[davidbepo]

but why? after reading the license it just seems like a more specific, aggressive agpl, there is nothing bad about it IMO

[zxy_thf]

but why? after reading the license it just seems like a more specific, aggressive agpl, there is nothing bad about it IMO

Both free and open source require the license allows users do what every they want in using the software, including selling them.

I could see this new license was probably designed to cover corner cases of AGPL, but I'm afraid their language is super confusing and covering too much...

[skeevy420]

but why? after reading the license it just seems like a more specific, aggressive agpl, there is nothing bad about it IMO

For an example -- If you wanted to develop a file storage service that was closed source and it uses MongoDB, you'd have to open source your project if you don't buy in to MongoDB's commercial solution.

Imagine if EXT4 had that clause -- if your public file storage server uses EXT4 but you have a closed source crypto layer for user privacy, you have to open source your crypto software that runs on it unless you pay us.

That is bad. It's essentially an open source shareware license.

[red23]

but why? after reading the license it just seems like a more specific, aggressive agpl, there is nothing bad about it IMO

Have not read the full license yet but I agree. I actually like the GPLv3 because it forces companies to keep it open to modification "Tivoisation". The entire community around web development and I think actually the entire open source community does not like the GPLv3 and I never understood that. They all go for MIT.

Funny thing is, first I thought negative about it when I read the title but then it became clear that its a license to force something to be open and continue to be open. My translation of "aggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users" is just that they do not want to allow filthy rich coops to take their work profit massively from it (without contributing back, even thought some probably would). But I guess that is their (Fedoras) definition of "Free" and "Open" that they should actually all be allowed to take something and then close it down to themselves only, build on top of it but never share anything.

I would be interested what Stallman and the FSF think of this license. This is the only thing I could find about it and its just reddit users talking https://www.reddit.com/r/fsf/comment...r_side_public/

[tuxd3v]

Seems that Fedora wants only something to be closed by RedHat, and sold has a product, and so, they are sad, with the new mongodb license..

[You-]

Red Hat rarely go for closed licenses even for solutions developed by them, so I don't think that is a concern.

[nuhamind2]

IANAL, but i think this only apply to mongo-as-a-service, if i create a web app which use mongo as storage, I don't have to open source my web app.