Making the GPL more scary [LWN.net]

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 19, 2018 10:32 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
In reply to: Making the GPL more scary by armijn
Parent article: Making the GPL more scary

I'm not sure why the creation of a derivative is relevant here - section 13 doesn't make any attempt to restrict itself to derivative works. It also doesn't prevent you from using the drivers under Apache 2, merely (arguably) that you commit to distributing those drivers under SSPL if you do so.

to post comments

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 19, 2018 11:05 UTC (Fri) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link] (5 responses)

Section 0 states what a "covered work" is. Also, the interpretation by the copyright holder (in this case MongoDB) is relevant. Law is not math.

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 19, 2018 11:14 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (4 responses)

Section 13 requires you to distribute the "Service Source Code" under SSPL, and the definition of "Service Source Code" is significantly broader than the definition of "covered work". I agree that the copyright holder's opinion is the relevant thing here, but the text you quoted is still consistent with being required to distribute the drivers under SSPL if you use MongoDB in a way that triggers section 13.

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 19, 2018 11:40 UTC (Fri) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link] (3 responses)

I would argue that section 13 directly contradicts sections 2 and 5 (search for 'covered work' in those sections) and I am sure that in court this would raise some eyebrows: if I were to run an instance of MongoDB under this license, then I have to make software that I don't own the copyrights of (and cannot relicense) available under their license? That's just impossible, so I am not going to lose any sleep over it. Good luck to them trying to enforce it.

I think it is a bad license: they essentially turned MongoDB into scareware to get companies to buy a proprietary license as it simply means less hassle.

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 21, 2018 18:01 UTC (Sun) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (2 responses)

> make software that I don't own the copyrights of (and cannot relicense) available under their license? That's just impossible

I think you are mistaken. Making available under a different license is allowed by permissive licenses. That is part of their attraction: you can distribute the permissive licensed code under a proprietary license as part of some product. Sometimes this is referred to as "sublicensing".

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Oct 21, 2018 19:34 UTC (Sun) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link] (1 responses)

No, I am not mistaken. If this license would extend to for example the Linux kernel for example I cannot relicense that, because I don't own the copyrights for that and the license for the Linux kernel doesn't allow relicensing, as it is not a permissive license.

Also, regarding permissive licenses: the original code will still be subject to the license conditions such as for example outlined in the BSD license (copyright notices).

Making the GPL more scary

Posted Nov 1, 2018 8:40 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Pretty much NO licences allow relicensing. They allow distributing under a different licence, which isn't the same thing.

If I take a BSD project, rewrite some of it, and redistribute, then it's perfectly okay to do so under the GPL. That doesn't change the licence of the code I borrowed - that *was* BSD, is *still* BSD, and will *remain* BSD. It's just that the project is now GPL and the safest option for recipients (unless they want a ton of work) is to abide by the GPL.

Cheers,
Wol