MongoDB switches up its open source license • Hacker News Board

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#131

Post by jhasse » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #94

redwood wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in small companies' interest to have their creations used and monetized by Google without anything being given back? I'm glad you're transparent about your own context here--it's appreciated, but I hope you can see that outside the walls of Google there's another world.

I'm not at all sure where you got any of that, it seems like you have an axe to grind. You clearly didn't read the link i said which says our issue with WTFPL is with the lack of warranty disclaimer and with the rights grant (which is not likely to be valid in a number of countries). You will find nothing, nor have i stated anything about the ability for google to use the code for "monetization" reasons. It doesn't e…

> Our policy pages are clear on why we ban licenses, even things like AGPL. You'll note they are not economic concerns (IE google won't be able to monetize), but compliance ones.

AGPL compliance wouldn't be that difficult if you remove making money from the equation. So indirectly your compliance concerns are based on economic concerns.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#132

Post by tyingq » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #126

vasco wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't own the term open source mate.

Your opinion isn't the only one out there. I recognize the OSI as the authority on the term open source. On a more practical level: who do you consider be the authority? If the answer is 'nobody' (except yourself) then that makes the term essentially meaningless because there is no standardization, which means that one should stop using that term.

OSI seems to recognize they don't own the term. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#133

Post by mpdehaan2 » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

vmbrasseur wrote: post #120

Vice President of the Open Source Initiative here. MongoDB submitted this new license for approval by OSI at the same time that they announced that they'd relicensed all of their code. We wish they'd started the process prior to the announcement, but what's done is done. The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. As the license review process…

This seems like FUD to me.

While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea of free software. Rather, the term open source was a reaction to the desire for commerical enterprises to avoid saying software was free.

Now it rejects the same argument from developers of software to make a profit, which I find ironic relative to the founding mission.

Previously, Commons Clause was called out in aggressive terms in twitter, rather than seeking to understand the underlying rationale.

Some of my thoughts:

https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-...

I am left to believe OSI views this as a useful political time to self-market, or otherwise sees licenses like this - which intend to fairly compensate software developers - as something that does not promote the interests of those that primarily fund it.

I'm sorry, but we don't need a gatekeeper anymore.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#134

Post by jesseb » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

vasco wrote: post #125

vmbrasseur wrote: post #120

Vice President of the Open Source Initiative here. MongoDB submitted this new license for approval by OSI at the same time that they announced that they'd relicensed all of their code. We wish they'd started the process prior to the announcement, but what's done is done. The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. As the license review process…

You don't own the term open source mate.

They're referring specifically to The Open Source Definition[1] outlined by the Open Source Initiative.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#135

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

vasco wrote: post #130

FooBarWidget wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion isn't the only one out there. I recognize the OSI as the authority on the term open source. On a more practical level: who do you consider be the authority? If the answer is 'nobody' (except yourself) then that makes the term essentially meaningless because there is no standardization, which means that one should stop using that term.

So by me saying that the term might be interpreted differently by different people - since it can't be owned by anyone now that it's in wide use (and hence implying there's different opinions out there) you assume that I fail to see there's a multitude of different opinions on the matter? That's exactly the point I was making.

Only if you're completely ignoring the context, which is MongoDB asked OSI to approve their license as "Open Source" - OSI isn't in a position to do so immediately, and so in OSI's estimation, MongoDB isn't "Open Source"

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#136

Post by FooBarWidget » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

vasco wrote: post #130

FooBarWidget wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion isn't the only one out there. I recognize the OSI as the authority on the term open source. On a more practical level: who do you consider be the authority? If the answer is 'nobody' (except yourself) then that makes the term essentially meaningless because there is no standardization, which means that one should stop using that term.

So by me saying that the term might be interpreted differently by different people - since it can't be owned by anyone now that it's in wide use (and hence implying there's different opinions out there) you assume that I fail to see there's a multitude of different opinions on the matter? That's exactly the point I was making.

No, that is not what I said.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#137

Post by jpambrun » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #126

vasco wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't own the term open source mate.

Your opinion isn't the only one out there. I recognize the OSI as the authority on the term open source. On a more practical level: who do you consider be the authority? If the answer is 'nobody' (except yourself) then that makes the term essentially meaningless because there is no standardization, which means that one should stop using that term.

The authority on word definitions is a dictionary, so that we don't have to argue like that.

This definition seems suitable: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#138

Post by Sir_Cmpwn » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

mpdehaan2 wrote: post #133

vmbrasseur wrote: post #120

Vice President of the Open Source Initiative here. MongoDB submitted this new license for approval by OSI at the same time that they announced that they'd relicensed all of their code. We wish they'd started the process prior to the announcement, but what's done is done. The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. As the license review process…

This seems like FUD to me. While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea of free software. Rather, the term open source was a reaction to the desire for commerical enterprises to avoid saying software was free. Now it rejects the same argument from developers of software to make a profit, which I find ironic relative to the founding…

The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source. The underlying reasons behind the Anti-Commons Clause are unimportant if the execution leads to such an egregious violation of these principles. I support the OSI and their mission is important. Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms while reaping its benefits is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that MongoDB is in the wrong here. The new license is perhaps misguided in that it seems functionally equivalent to the AGPL, but after I read it I think it meets the OSD. However, MongoDB should have spoken to the OSI before switching their license to be sure.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#139

Post by JaimeThompson » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

vmbrasseur wrote: post #129

JaimeThompson wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware that the OSI was the only one who could declare something to be "OPEN SOURCE". Is there a certification fee to have my license / code blessed with the designation?

There's no fee, and no need to submit any code. The entire approval process is documented on our website: https://opensource.org/approval

I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. You categorically stated it wasn't opensource. Had you stated that in your opinion it wasn't opensource it would be different.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#140

Post by NathanKP » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

SteveNuts wrote: post #9

k__ wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the feeling that AWS and Azure are pushing their own NoSQL solutions and don't care much about MongoDB.

A lot of AWS's managed services are just off the shelf open source projects on the backend. Amazon can afford to fork the project and poach top talent from your company. I think these moves are extremely short-sighted. Changing license models only causes instability in the overall ecosystem.

> A lot of AWS's managed services are just off the shelf open source projects on the backend.

Amazon employee here. Amazon offers two different types of service. For a service like Amazon RDS then yes it is the standard open source project hosted and managed by AWS. The value add is that you don't have to administrate and back it up, etc.

For something like Amazon Aurora its a different story. Aurora is API compatible with MySQL and Postgres but it is designed internally to work quite differently, really designed for the cloud first. And the result is its up to 5x faster than the standard open source software and just better than the open source version in many ways.

Both as a former customer of AWS and now as an engineer at AWS I have always preferred the from scratch implementations by AWS over the hosted open source versions. I'd rather not use a forked version of open source. I'd rather use something built by AWS engineers from the ground up