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

211–220 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#211

Post by jay-anderson »

hartator wrote: post #205
BFatts wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The code for windows has been leaked and people could get the source. Sometimes companies have agreements for viewing the source of software they produce. These are two examples where the source code is visible, but this alone does not make them open source. There must be other attributes beyond just being able to see the source code.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#212

Post by dtech »

hartator wrote: post #205
BFatts wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not using a useful definition.

If I give you some source code, with the license that you cannot run the software, modify the code or copy or use the code in any way, it follows your definition and is still useless.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#213

Post by muks »

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…

> But we do need a gatekeeper

Having observed this area for 18 years now, I'll say that gatekeeper (a party which has unwaveringly observed and stuck to delivering the principles of software freedom) is the Free Software Foundation. This is the only reason why users gravitate to "open source" - not its sexy name, but the freedoms such software provides when a user wants to use/apply it.

Back in the day, the founding president of OSI justified VA Linux making the "alexandria" project closed source (the software that ran Sourceforge.net back in the day - back when sourceforge.net was a good citizen). The remains of "alexandria" was forked to form other projects such as GNU savannah, and there was a later fork named GForge IIRC.

https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2001082501120prbzc...

There is only one organization that has unwaveringly sought freedoms for users of software. I've firsthand heard it being accused of promoting communism, and sometimes have wondered if it went too far. At least, they haven't wandered in their principles.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#214

Post by BFatts »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #127
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 wasn't aware that the OSI was the only one who could declare something to be "OPEN SOURCE". Is there a certification fee to have my license / code blessed with the designation?

The OSI defined "Open Source" so they kinda get to put the rules to it. There is an Open Source Definition (OSD) which states what the license to the software can and cannot do. It's primarily about licensing at the OSI, not about open source itself. The definition clarifies what can be considered "open source" so organizations that need structure have something to follow.

As for apps, there's no approval process for an application - only the license applied. And if you use one of the 83 OSI-approved licenses, you can be guaranteed that your software falls under the Open Source Definition, stewarded by the OSI.

So that's how the OSI fits in.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#215

Post by AsyncAwait »

codegeek wrote: post #208
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.

> 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"?

MIT is an approved license, so yes.

> is a legal requirement?

No.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#216

Post by BFatts »

nemo44x wrote: post #199
BFatts wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Big difference between a "party" and a strategy session. So it wasn't literally defined at a party. And, even if it were, I guess it doesn't matter. The OSI owns the OSD which is what defines what Open Source is.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#217

Post by joshsimmons »

codegeek wrote: post #208
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.

Fair question :-) And the answer is no, you would not need OSI's permission to call your project open source -- because you'd be using the MIT license which has been reviewed and approved by the OSI.

You can find the list of approved licenses, along with information about the review and approval process, over at https://opensource.org/licenses

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#218

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #207
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more.

>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.

No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#219

Post by smueller1234 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #187
jhasse wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?).

And then repeat that in a number of jurisdictions!

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#220

Post by BFatts »

cesarb wrote: post #188
BFatts wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, pedantic... totally pedantic. It is derived from the open DFSG, so NO Debian does not own it. Don't be such a pedant - it doesn't help the conversation.
Post reply on HN