@paulsnar My main issue is that the Affero GPL is sufficient to protect user freedom; the SSPL exists only to make it harder for certain actors to exercise those freedoms when they conflict with the vendor's business model.

"We provide hosting" and "We sell copies of software" aren't sustainable revenue streams for FOSS since being the developer doesn't make you better at this than a big player. Other sources of income (roughly in decreasing order) in which the original developers have an actual advantage over the likes of Amazon include support, consulting, customization, training, and paid feature requests.

Software should be easy to host; a business model that depends on it being hard to host is a conflict of interest.

@Seirdy Totally a valid argument, and I agree to this bit, yet seems like your argument works more on the small scale of hosting software, where you're fine with a couple of instances. The SSPL is (imho) more about forcing the hyperscalers to share their infra for the benefit of others who might want to compete, though now that I write it out it feels a bit moot because, almost tautologically, the only ones who'll really benefit from this are the megacorps themselves and not the average (= small) user. \

@Seirdy Which also in part disregards the fact that Google is really not shy about publishing a lot of their inventions, therefore making it not that much of a trade secret.

I feel like the point I was trying to make was more beside the SSPL debate and more about whether "open source" has any subjectively good meaning left to it, given OSI's staunch position about SSPL which I don't think is entirely warranted—though it's still debatable whether SSPL meets that at all, \

@Seirdy given OSD's point 9, which I think comes closest to conflict with SSPL. After writing this, I think I've come to the conclusion that for me it is not, in part due to my overall political beliefs. But then again, I'm not the biggest believer in libre software either, so that's not a point I focused on a lot either. I intended for it to be more about the values involved in both OSS and libre software, and how corp's motivations align with them. \


@Seirdy Nevertheless, thank you for the opinion, it's a great point to consider. :) (Also sorry about the split status barrage. Guess Mastodon doesn't work well for long-shortform content.)

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!