NOTE: This session ultimately did not occur as described. We're planning a panel discussion at Copyleft Conf 2020 on a similar topic.

The scope of copyleft has always been right at the core of what it means to be compliant. Many of the FAQs (and arguments!) associated with GPL compliance have centered on the scope of license and what needs to be included as part of the "Corresponding Source."

But MongoDB's adoption of the Server-Side Public License (SSPL) has cast this question in a new light. The SSPL adopts a very broad reading of what works must be released and licensed to be compliant, encompassing "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."

With the SSPL as backdrop, this discussion will focus on the core legal question of copyleft: If we assume that a person wants to draft the strongest copyleft license possible, does the law impose any limits on the possible maximum scope of a copyleft license? And if so, how? Under what theories - license, contract, or both? Are there different permissible scopes based upon the allowable remedy?

Further, if there are likely to be limits on the scope of copyleft, how does that affect our analysis of the duties owed under various copyleft licenses?

This discussion will begin with a brief review of some of the applicable cases, followed by a back-and-forth in the Socratic tradition. Case citations and legal analysis will be especially welcomed.