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

181–190 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#181

Post by BFatts »

rmc wrote: post #170
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. It might still be open source. It's accurate to say it's not under an OSI approved open source licence, but that's not exactly the same thing.

The OSI is the founder and DEFINER of the term "open source" so saying that it's open source without an OSI approved license is like saying your app's an approved Android app without it first being reviewed. Get it??

Open Source is a term coined by the OSI.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#182

Post by kstrauser »

rmc wrote: post #174
kstrauser wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you've never had to enumerate every piece of software you've installed, you might not think so. In practice, it's a major PITA. And what if you're using a closed-source CI/CD or monitoring system, so that you can't comply with their bizarre terms?

No, I think the real goal here is to make it effectively impossible to use this in a business setting without buying a commercial license. I'm glad Linus and RMS didn't see it that way.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#183

Post by module0000 »

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.

>> who do you consider be the authority?

That would be Richard Matthew Stallman, the proverbial OG in this entire field.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#184

Post by wmf »

swozey wrote: post #105
super3 wrote: post #64

What really should happen is that the large cloud companies (really just Google, Amazon, and Azure) should be providing a portion of the revenue generated to the open source projects. The open source companies would make more features and drive more usage. Everybody wins. It makes no sense that the large cloud providers make billions off OSS, and don't give something more sustainable back. Classic tragedy of the comm…

Your 3 examples have a LOT of swes that work full time on open source/cncf projects not to mention they're platinum members of CNCF/Linux Foundation, etc. So I think that's a bit disingenuous. They're not funnelling billions into those tunnels but a huge majority of contributors are Redhat, Google, Coreos, Huawei, Alibaba, Intel and various other big names that definitely use open source tech and provide a huge benef…

From a global perspective it looks pretty fair that some company uses a lot of open source software and also contributes a lot. But it doesn't get anyone paid. If you're toiling away unpaid on Redis or MongoDB or whatever, the fact that Google gave the world k8s does not help you.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#185

Post by blotter_paper »

derekp7 wrote: post #58
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like WTFPL as a permissive licence in these cases. Small developers and companies without layers of lawyers will read the licence, see that it says "do what the ---- you want", and use your code accordingly. Big companies with layers of lawyers will read the licence, blanch in terror, and either refuse to use the software, or contact you for alternative terms. Case in point: Google forbids use of the WTFPL.…

So similar to a clause in the license that says "don't use it for evil". Many companies will want a license that doesn't have that clause in it, because it is so ill defined.

I find it funny that Crockford gave Microsoft the rights to use his software for evil, requesting nothing in return. The clause really was just a joke.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#186

Post by nailer »

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…

Saying the OSD defines Open Source is not 'FUD'.

Off topic flamebait comments the one above have no place on Hacker News.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#187

Post by WorldMaker »

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.

No one knows what AGPL compliance actually means, whether money is being made or not. It has failed several lawyers' sniff tests for being potentially arbitrarily enforceable however the AGPL developer sees fit, and the general consensus is that we won't have any idea of what AGPL compliance even looks like until its had its day or three hundred in the court system defining what exactly its limits are (if any?).

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#188

Post by cesarb »

BFatts wrote: post #178
JaimeThompson wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Isn't the OSD basically the DFSG? Therefore one could argue that it was actually defined by Debian, not the OSI.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#189

Post by jahewson »

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…

I don't think that an appeal to authority is a very good way to make this argument. It's the blatant restriction to the field of endeavor which makes this license quite obviously not open source, because there's nothing open about something which certain people are not allowed to use.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#190

Post by jillesvangurp »

IMHO a better move for them would have been to clear up the legal minefield that comes with AGPL and move to a more business friendly license like the Apache 2.0 or MIT license. These licenses are well understood and don't cripple your users in any way.

I don't get why any business would want to scare their new users with a license like the AGPL that I would argue is explicitly designed to create legal uncertainty like that and popular with companies like Mongo primarily for that reason (as opposed to some strong freedom related moral arguments). Inventing your own license because the AGPL is giving your users to much freedom sounds rather desperate (not to mention misguided).

Changing the license to Apache 2.0 might actually make them much more attractive as an acquisition target for any of the big tech companies out there looking to add something like mongo to their portfolio. I'd argue AGPL is actually an obstacle for most of the bigger companies out there that have existing business relations with their customers based on more business friendly licenses.

It would also enable lots of people to experiment with using mongo without legal worries and thus enable them to refocus their company around actually creating value for their paying customers without alienating the vast majority of non paying users with complicated licensing options.

Companies like Elastic (which recently did their IPO) are having plenty of success with using the Apache 2.0 license without compromising on commercial success. Their developer ecosystem includes lots of outsiders in the apache community, the academic community, and users. The reason they are doing pretty OK is that they have a decent monetization strategy that involves delivering actual value to their customers: stuff their users want and are willing to pay for. Stuff like proprietary add-ons (e.g. machine learning) on top of what they ship for free, good support, training, cloud based hosting, consulting, etc. We use their hosted Elastic cloud and I'd argue it is pretty good value.

Post reply on HN