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

201–210 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#201

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #193
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't really true. The FSF and OSI have subtly different goals but the definition of open source and free software are nearly identical. The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#202

Post by mintplant »

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…

While you're reviewing the license, I'd be interested in the OSI's opinion as to whether or not the SSPL retains compatibility with GPL software in light of the striking of the relevant paragraph in section 13—and what the implications would be of adding it back in.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#203

Post by ken »

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.

Pre-GNU/BSD/Linux Unix included source code, too, but I don't think anyone would claim it was "open source" in any sense of the word.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#204

Post by rand0mthought »

nine_k wrote: post #156

The meat of the change: SSPL explicitly states that anybody who wants to offer MongoDB as a service — or really any other software that uses this license — needs to either get a commercial license or open source the service to give back the community. Looks like a pretty straightforward extension of GPL principles, by replacing the linking of licensed code to remotely calling the licensed code. It can have a lot of i…

The trick question here is - "Open Source the service" - under what license? Does it also have to be SSPL, or it can be any OpenSource license?

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#205

Post by hartator »

BFatts wrote: post #167
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…

But we do need a gatekeeper - that's where you're wrong. Without it, we don't get a fair review of licenses by people most adept at understanding what Open Source is. Without it, we will go back to the wild west of licensing where we have hundreds of OSS licenses that each have their own little clauses and are written by developers, not lawyers, so they don't really hold up in court. Open Source is for corporations t…

> The source is provided, yes, but that doesn't make it open source.

For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. After you can have more or less restrictive licenses.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#206

Post by sangnoir »

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.

You will find that RMS detests "Open Source"[1]. He's more of a Free software guy, the distinction on user's freedom is important.

1.https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#207

Post by AsyncAwait »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #201
AsyncAwait wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

This isn't really true. The FSF and OSI have subtly different goals but the definition of open source and free software are nearly identical. The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF.

> The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF.

In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software?

By inserting itself as the only legitimate body to define what "open-source" is, it is by definition engaging in politics, no less than the FSF.

> The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source

It is rather assuming that the OSI is "respected" or that it defends "non-controversial rights in open source".

The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#208

Post by codegeek »

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…

Honest question. If I write some code and release it on Github with an MIT license, do I need permission from OSI to call my project "Open Source"? Is there a legal requirement? I am confused.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#209

Post by anarazel »

NathanKP wrote: post #140
SteveNuts wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compatibl…

> 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.

It's also noticably slower than plain PG in other cases.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#210

Post by merb »

wmf wrote: post #184
swozey wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the fact that Google gave the world k8s does not help you.

so google should give everything away AND also need to pay to every open source project, besides that smaller player don't?

sorry the world does not work like that. open source means giving and taking, not only taking. google might not be an angel, however restricting them to pay - OPEN SOURCE, non restrictive work - is just silly.

Post reply on HN