The Server Side Public License (SSPL) was submitted to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), but its adoption by Elastic led to criticism, particularly from those who argued that the license's for-profit origin should be a factor in its evaluation. However, this perspective is flawed, as it prioritizes the company behind the license over the license itself. The OSI should focus on the living nature of licenses and consider factors outside the text, such as dual-licensing plans, developer evangelism, iteration and improvement, lawyer education, pre-OSI public discussion and iteration, adoption from non-author projects, and evaluating other governance components. These considerations would help assess the potential future stewardship of a strong copyleft license and eliminate bad-faith arguments on all sides. The OSI's evaluation process should be more nuanced, taking into account the broader context in which a license is submitted, rather than solely relying on the text itself.