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

191–200 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#191

Post by coldtea »

BFatts wrote: post #181
rmc wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Open Source is a term coined by the OSI.

No, it's not:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html

And even if it was, popular terms reach beyond the persons/organizations that coined them.

Unless it's trademarked, it's just a term all kinds of people use, many of which don't know/care about OSI.

In fact:

https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#192

Post by gnulinux »

DannyBee wrote: post #107

FWIW: This license is almost certainly incompatible with GPLv3. They struck the portion of section 13 that allowed for such combinations. (You can see it in the redline they published here: https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare... )

Yes this is even more restrictive than GNU AGPLv3. If FSF is ok with these changes they might even approve it (GNU AGPLv4? Recall that AGPL wasn't a thing before Affero made it).

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#193

Post by AsyncAwait »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #138
mpdehaan2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms

OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects, so this statement is quite ironic.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#194

Post by nailer »

module0000 wrote: post #183
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.

>> who do you consider be the authority? That would be Richard Matthew Stallman, the proverbial OG in this entire field.

ESR and O Reilly are the OGs for OSS, though they certainly owe a debt to RMS

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#195

Post by wmf »

sangnoir wrote: post #145
wmf wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was an unstated assumption that hosting providers aren't willing to contribute back their secret sauce changes so they would have to buy a commercial license. But that didn't work. I don't know if the new MongoDB license will work either; the Commons "Clause" seems more honest in its wording.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#196

Post by jahewson »

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…

> All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form

No.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#197

Post by nemo44x »

BFatts wrote: post #181
rmc wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To be precise, Christine Peterson coined it. The OSI was formed very shortly after.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#198

Post by jahewson »

bad_user wrote: post #43

I hope OSI and the FSF don’t approve their new “SSPL” license. AGPL style licenses impose restrictions on usage, thus violating freedom 0 in the Free Software’s definition or Open Source’s rule 6. AGPL should have never been allowed, precisely because it opens the door for commercial entities to eat their cake and have it too, being the kind of license that can be effectively used to disallow commercial products buil…

> AGPL style licenses impose restrictions on usage

No, not in the commonly understood sense of "usage" as "field of endeavor". I understand what you're getting at but anybody can use AGPL'd software for anything. They just need to publish any modifications they make to said AGPL'd software. It's a restriction, but not on "usage". Such a restriction would be something like "you can't use this in the nuclear industry" or "you can't sell this".

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#199

Post by nemo44x »

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.

It was literally defined at a party. Or a strategy session to be precise.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#200

Post by muks »

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…

> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE.

Perhaps you meant to say "is not OSI Certified", because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase "open source". See what's on your own website: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

On the other comments in this thread, even though MongoDB have "submitted" to having the OSI review their license, OSI still aren't capable of restricting anyone's rights on the use of the phrase "open source" including MongoDB's.

I can see your organization tries to make sure that there is an approved set of principles that identify libre/free software which is good. The phrase "open source" has been used in myriad ways since its early days, and not just for software.

I'm a programmer who has written open source since 2000. I would defend you when it comes to the benefits of libre software, but you can't restrict others over using something that you don't legally own.

Post reply on HN