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

171–180 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#171

Post by BFatts »

sam0x17 wrote: post #154
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…

1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Microsoft issuing a warning that they have not yet verified that Linux is a "real" operating system, and to stay tuned for their final judgement. The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. 2. Al…

You are so off base. You may have been writing source-available software, but it's not open source unless you know the OSI's definition. THAT is what everybody abides by to make sure that the licenses are fair and in the spirit of open source software.

Open source is an agreed upon definition for software provided under an OSI or FSF approved license. To state anything else shows that you DON'T understand what open source is.

You see, for corporations to operate they follow a set of rules. Rules designed to keep them on the right side of the law. As such, without the OSD we wouldn't have any rules to understand what open source is. Do you understand that?

Open source isn't just for hobbyist programmers, it's used to run the worlds biggest software platforms.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#172

Post by _skel »

sangnoir wrote: post #128
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.

MongoDB recognizes OSI as an authority as well, which is why they submitted their license to OSI for approval. Which led us to this moment, where OSI has not (/yet) granted that approval, and that apparently raised gp's hackles for some reason.

MongoDB recognizes that OSI approval is a nice thing to have as a selling point. I very much doubt that they accept the OSI as an authority that can make binding rules and regulations about who gets to call their software "open source".

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#173

Post by DannyBee »

jhasse wrote: post #131
DannyBee wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

This is simply false (on both points), and you haven't given any reason it would be true past "i feel this way". Even with direct support from our build system, AGPL compliance is incredibly difficult relative to GPL and other licenses[1]

This argument also amounts to "I know more about your job than you do", which, if you do, awesome!, please feel free to do it :) I'm actually happy to go do something else.

But i don't see evidence that this is true.

[1] For starters, we have to distinguish between what things , what are user facing, what kinds of users have access to them (IE internal services accessible only to FTE googlers are different from those accessible to TVC for AGPL purposes) , etc. This is an incredibly difficult set of problems on the technical side.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#174

Post by rmc »

kstrauser wrote: post #36
shadowmint wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare... “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for 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 softwa…

That... is an impressive load of shit. So because I want to host MongoDB, I have to offer up the source for the Linux distro used to host the Jenkins server that I use to test it, huh. Last week I was debating whether MongoDB is now completely obsoleted by PostgreSQL’s JSON datatype. As of now, I consider that no longer a debate.

Couldn't you just say "I run Jenkins available from https://blah.com and Ubuntu from https://blah.com"? Doesn't sound too strenuous

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#175

Post by module0000 »

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…

>> MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE

Hey, that's not true - neither yourself nor OSI or anyone else gets to decide that. If the nice folks at MongoDB continue to release their source code, then it's open source. End of story.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#176

Post by metheus »

zokier wrote: post #96
metheus wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSPL is based on the GPL, not the AGPL, so no, the SSPL isn't itself a copyright infringement. BTW, check out the "What specifically is different between the GPL and this new license and what will it be called?" section of the FAQ: https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license...

> SSPL is based on the GPL, not the AGPL, so no, the SSPL isn't itself a copyright infringement I don't see how the distinction makes a difference here, both have the same clause about changing not being allowed.

Oh, sorry, that was a non-sequitur. The actual reason is that text doesn't mean you can't modify them and create new licenses, it means you can't modify them and still call them A/GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#177

Post by dragonwriter »

module0000 wrote: post #175
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…

>> MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE Hey, that's not true - neither yourself nor OSI or anyone else gets to decide that. If the nice folks at MongoDB continue to release their source code, then it's open source. End of story.

> If the nice folks at MongoDB continue to release their source code, then it's open source.

No, it's source available / shared source. “Open” doesn't mean merely visible in the phrase “open source”.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#178

Post by BFatts »

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.

You sound like you're arguing just to argue. Do you have a valid point? Their OSD is what defines open source. You didn't define it. It wasn't defined at some party or demo-conf. It was defined by the OSI - they defined Open Source Software. Arguing otherwise shows a serious lack of OSS knowledge.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#179

Post by ken »

It's their code so (under current law) they can license it however they want. I see some potential issues, though.

> "Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate."

I don't see how to reconcile this with the new section 13, which seems to say exactly the opposite. What does this section mean, now that section 13 was completely changed?

> it has now submitted the SSPL for approval from the Open Source Initiative

IANAL but I don't see how it satisfies part 9 of the OSI Definition, or the DFSG. As DannyBee already mentioned, it's also incompatible with other existing open-source licenses. Why do they want to continue calling it "open source"? It sounds like they really just want to be a proprietary database.

> For virtually all regular users who are currently using the community server, nothing changes because the changes to the license don’t apply to them.

Really? It's written in a way that sounds like it captures all users under the same umbrella as resellers. If I wrote a data analysis web app that happened to use MongoDB (as one of my previous employers did), isn't that a case of adding "user interfaces" (and "storage software and hosting software") for it, meaning I'd need to provide source code for "all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available"?

I can't find any license pricing info on the MongoDB webpage, but some googling turned up a whitepaper that puts MongoDB licensing at around $11,000 per server per year. That basically means MongoDB's own "cloud" services are the only game in town. ("No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die.")

That means there's a single provider of this API, and you can't afford to run your own server, so it's essentially cloud-only, and it might not be legally compatible with other open-source software you want to use anyway. That's a whole lot of risk you're asking me to take on. Is MongoDB so much better than any free database, for any new users, that it's worth this risk?

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#180

Post by FooBarWidget »

sam0x17 wrote: post #154
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…

1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Microsoft issuing a warning that they have not yet verified that Linux is a "real" operating system, and to stay tuned for their final judgement. The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. 2. Al…

Regarding number 2: by that definition of yours, Microsoft Shared Source Initiative in the early 2000s was also "open source". See the problem with not having a precise and standardized definition?
Post reply on HN