Making the Server Side Public License useful for other projects

[fred trotter]

Hello,

        I have been a fan of AGPL for quite some time, but have had concerns very similar to those expressed by MongoDB Inc and fixed in the first version of the Server Side Public License (SSPL). My goal is exactly the same, which is, that SaaS is fully encouraged with the Open Source version, but offering a SaaS solution does trigger the license and require the publishing of the sourcecode. 

I also like that you are suggesting that the code needs to be published on the network for anyone, and not just recipients of the service. 

All good things IMHO. Which makes SSPL a solid candidate for me when considering releasing my own work. 

However, I am not developing a database. Many of the things that I want to are described slightly differently than the way Mongo has expressed them. 

I would love to have some input into the next version of this, because I suspect that others might have other language they would want to include. 

The object to section 13 is obvious to anyone who is in roughly the same boat that you are "Hey, feel free to use this stuff, but give me a way to make money too"

It is obvious that you are trying to achieve "Hey SaaS is cool, but if you are going to do that, then you need to contribute that to the community".

In the end, if you took feedback specifically on your new section 13, I suspect that you would find either more generic and encompassing ways to describe the "triggering" mechanisms for SaaS, or just a sharper list of examples of things that are triggering. In the end, the community can help you bullet proof your license.

Which is what you need because the whole reason you are doing this is because you were being "loopholed" by third parties who were already clearly violating the spirit of the AGPL. 

I am very happy that you are in the position to do that, having 100% copyright does make life easier. 

But your license could easily grow to being something that is reliable for others besides you. Something it has to do, if it hopes to garner ongoing support from the OSI. 

Which brings me to my last point, you entirely removed the section on how to use the license yourself. 

I can see why you might want to do that, since that section is pretty heavily leans on the "writing organization" for reference points. 

You might consider forming a small coalition of software developers in a similar position to you (people like me, but with more time) to setup a small foundation to help with this. Or ask FSF to give you a sub-committee to have them manage the license for you with your basic goals in mind. (But then you have to deal with Stallman, who has some trouble listening when he has made up his mind about things). 

In any case, I applaud your efforts to develop a clearer license, and I hope that the community rewards you for it. 

Regards,

-Fred Trotter

http://fredtrotter.com

Server Side Public License

[fred trotter]

Oh, and I forgot... 

The FSF created a little project to handle at-scale comment on documents like this, when they were working on GPLv3...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-ment

That is likely the right way to take comments on this license from your community.. 

-FT