Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MongoDB switches up its open source license

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#141

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

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.

The only people who interpret the term open source differently from the OSI definition are either wrong or deliberately trying to sow discontent in the open source community.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#142

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#143

Post by vmbrasseur »

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 encourages and supports all people and organisations to profit from free and open source software.

The ability to do so is enshrined in Item 6 of the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

The Open Source Definition provides a single point of reference for what it means for a project to be "open source."

Licenses are submitted for approval by those who wish to prove that the license provides the benefits and freedoms assured by the Open Source Definition and therefore by open source.

Licenses that do not provide each benefit and freedom in that definition are not not approved and are not—literally by definition—open source.

MongoDB recognises the value that a consistent worldwide definition of open source provides to the entire software development ecosystem and is seeking approval for their license to show their support and respect for the definition.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#144

Post by vmbrasseur »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #139
vmbrasseur wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please see this comment for more information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#145

Post by sangnoir »

wmf wrote: post #88
DannyBee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm sure people will get riled up about this, but it makes sense. Building a business on an OSS database in a world of behemoth cloud providers is really hard. It's clear Google and Amazon (and maybe even Azure) are comfy taking OSS work, doing a ton of proprietary development on it, and leaving the companies who did all the groundwork flailing in the wind. " This is simply not true in any meaningful way. Please cit…

It seems like even if the cloud providers contributed 100% of their code back to Mongo it still wouldn't be enough to keep Mongo alive. They need money, not code. That's the subtext to this whole discussion. AGPL was a roundabout way of hinting that cloud providers should kick back some revenue and now that it didn't work the truth can come out.

> AGPL was a roundabout way of hinting that cloud providers should kick back some revenue and now that it didn't work the truth can come out.

How does AGPL force kicking back of revenue? The only way I can think of is if the cloud-provider choose to relicense the software (for a fee), because they can always fulfill the terms of the AGPL by publishing all their changes without paying a dime.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#146

Post by jfk13 »

sangnoir wrote: post #135
vasco wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

As OSI hasn't yet reviewed the license, perhaps it would have been better for the OSI VP to explain that "MongoDB may not meet the OSI definition of Open Source" than to announce (in CAPITALS, no less) that "MongoDB...IS NOT OPEN SOURCE".

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#147

Post by zjaffee »

mrkurt wrote: post #33

(Context: I worked on Compose/MongoHQ for a very long time. We were the first to monetize MongoDB) I'm sure people will get riled up about this, but it makes sense. Building a business on an OSS database in a world of behemoth cloud providers is really hard. It's clear Google and Amazon (and maybe even Azure) are comfy taking OSS work, doing a ton of proprietary development on it, and leaving the companies who did al…

It's funny because redis recently did something rather similar to what mongo just did. This will be an accelerating trend in open source, where these sorts of companies will either develop proprietary platforms with closed source code (databricks), or will move forward the way redis and mongo are.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#148

Post by parent5446 »

jpambrun wrote: post #137
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.

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

Strange, my dictionary has a different definition: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/open-source

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#149

Post by themoonbus »

jpambrun wrote: post #137
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.

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

Dictionaries reflect common usage and shared understanding, they're not some infallible source. If the technology community started using the term "open source" in a different way, the dictionary would have to be updated to reflect the new meaning.
Post reply on HN