On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:36 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think it's clear that the SSPL does not meet the Fedora licensing > requirements: Can you elaborate why? > > | “If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version > | available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service > | Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, > | under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the > | Program or modified version available to third parties as a service > | includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with > | the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through > | a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or > | primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, > | or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose > | of the Software or modified version. > | > | “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program > | or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs > | that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a > | service, including, without limitation, management software, user > | interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, > | monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting > | software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service > | using the Service Source Code you make available.” This section, right? This could be interpreted as "you have to give us the source code for the compiler you used to build the software, under the SPPL license". Is that an example of your concern? josh > <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003603.html> > > This means that we cannot update certain software (which I will not name > here because I find the name offensive) past their Ocotber 15, 2018 > versions. Patch backports are also out of the quesiton because the old > (AGPLv3) and new licenses are mutually incompatble, and the patches > would have to be assumed to be licensed under the new license if taken > from a branch that has already been relicensed. > > Correct? > > Thanks, > Florian > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
