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

241–250 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#241

Post by BFatts »

nemo44x wrote: post #197
BFatts wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is true - the OSI didn't coin it. But Bruce Perens of the OSI trademarked Open Source with the definition as the rules to apply it.

I think that basically puts to rest the question of who "owns" Open Source.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#242

Post by the_af »

amirathi wrote: post #236

None of OSI's Open Source licenses (including AGPL) protect creators financial interest in the cloud first world. Period. I want to issue "View and Internal Use License" for my work. Anyone can view the source code, modify, and use the software for their own benefit as they see fit. Under no circumstances can anyone sell/re-distribute/host the paid version of software or any derivative thereof. Why can't OSI create s…

The license you describe, while definitely useful, is not open source by any meaningful definition of the concept. I don't mean "not OSI open source", but "not open source as the term has evolved". Similar licenses have been tried (see Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative) and you can definitely devise one yourself and no-one can stop you.

The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason: it's not open source.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#243

Post by AsyncAwait »

sangnoir wrote: post #232
AsyncAwait wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think OP meant in the spiritual sense, free software is the original "open-source". A better one, I'd argue, but that's a different discussion.

I was addressing OP's suggestion that RMS is the authority on "Open Source" (which was the question further up the thread). He'd rather have you use/contribute (to) Free software instead.

Yes, I understood that, I assume the OP meant that he is an authority on "open-source" in that "free software" was the original "open-source" and thus "open-source" has RMS a lot to thank for. Otherwise I agree.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#244

Post by err4nt »

BFatts wrote: post #214
JaimeThompson wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's been a big help to me in both understanding what freedoms I have as a consumer of software, as well as providing me with thoroughly vetted, top-quality licenses to work with when I'm trying to give freedoms to the people who consume my software. OSI is incredibly useful, and have probably saved me needing to consult with a lawyer at least couple of times already. Now spread that benefit across an entire industry to get an idea the amount of value they provide!

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#245

Post by Waterluvian »

hueving wrote: post #229
muks wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "…

Not sure anyone actually thinks "open source" is a term owned by an organization and the gp didn't say they were restricting Mongo, so I'm not sure if your clarification is necessary. It's like someone claiming certain software doesn't scale. There is no need to clarify that the author doesn't own the word "scalability". Op is speaking for the OSI's opinion on whether it's open source or not.

Then Op should not say in all caps, "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE".

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#246

Post by ashelmire »

babuskov wrote: post #73
mrkurt wrote: post #33

(Context: I worked on Compose/MongoHQ for a very long time. We were the first to monetize MongoDB) I'm sure people will get riled up about this, but it makes sense. Building a business on an OSS database in a world of behemoth cloud providers is really hard. It's clear Google and Amazon (and maybe even Azure) are comfy taking OSS work, doing a ton of proprietary development on it, and leaving the companies who did al…

> exploit permissive licenses to the max I feel like many people deciding to use an open source license for their project never consider the consequences of such choice. They use OSS because it's "cool" or they hope to get some free work done for them. If you pick an open source license and someone uses your code to build something else within the license boundaries, that is not a Bad Thing(tm). I have released many…

My personal idea is that you shouldn't open source anything you plan to make money from. Technologies that you build along the way (like React out of Facebook and a million other examples) are good candidates for open source.

Open source db software is suitable for these dual licenses - using it is free, but if you are going to sell products and services that are repackaged versions of the tool, you should pay the creator (like mysql).

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#247

Post by BFatts »

sangnoir wrote: post #206
module0000 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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....

RMS has an ideal: All software should be free and open.

This doesn't work for businesses that need to profit from what they do. Keeping things proprietary, while benefiting from source-available software is impossible if a company has to release their source. Competition goes out the window.

So while RMS has a nice ideal, it doesn't generally apply.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#248

Post by mrkurt »

DannyBee wrote: post #74
mrkurt wrote: post #33

(Context: I worked on Compose/MongoHQ for a very long time. We were the first to monetize MongoDB) I'm sure people will get riled up about this, but it makes sense. Building a business on an OSS database in a world of behemoth cloud providers is really hard. It's clear Google and Amazon (and maybe even Azure) are comfy taking OSS work, doing a ton of proprietary development on it, and leaving the companies who did al…

"I'm sure people will get riled up about this, but it makes sense. Building a business on an OSS database in a world of behemoth cloud providers is really hard. It's clear Google and Amazon (and maybe even Azure) are comfy taking OSS work, doing a ton of proprietary development on it, and leaving the companies who did all the groundwork flailing in the wind. " This is simply not true in any meaningful way. Please cit…

My belief is: Amazon/Google (and to a lesser extent, Azure) capture a tremendous amount of revenue by coupling known OSS infrastructure with a hosted cloud business. This is because they've been able to extend unrelated monopolies

What you're saying is (I think): Google contributes code + projects back to the OSS community and sponsors OSS organizations.

I think if we could see the actual numbers — if it were possible to see Google's cloud revenue with associated OSS contributions — we'd see that what they're actually giving "back" is tiny, and it's the equivalent of donating to charities.

Since we don't know how many people actually work on OSS at Google, we can maybe use this estimate: https://twitter.com/mjasay/status/960563592683667456

Assuming Google pays ~$250k salaries to all of those folks to work full time on other peoples' projects, they're spending about $500mm/year on OSS while making ~$2bn/yr on just Google cloud. And that's horribly optimistic, I doubt much of that money is going to projects Google doesn't control.

Google's original OSS projects are different, I tend to like them. But given Google's market power the actual effect is to commoditize all the things Google doesn't expect to make money on. Kubernetes is great. Mesosphere is increasingly irrelevant because of it. OSS projects from megacorps tend to have the same effect as price dumping. They can afford to spend more money making something an non-viable business than most companies can spend at all.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#249

Post by mithr »

vasco wrote: post #125
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…

You don't own the term open source mate.

In a funny way, I actually don't think ownership of the term, or even who gets to decide that, is what really matters. Mongo can release their software under a license they term "open source", or "special mongo license", or "license X" -- they're under no obligation to use any commonly-accepted licenses or terms. They are certainly free to call themselves "open source" under any new license, and make their arguments as to why they believe that term applies.

However, what really matters here is whether, if they choose to do that, developers would still be willing to freely contribute to Mongo's code base, and whether companies who use open source software will continue to use their product. Because _that's_ the reason Mongo cares about being "open source". If most developers and organizations recognize the OSI, with their license approval process, as the arbiters of what constitutes an open source license, then that's the reason the OSI's opinion here really counts. Not because they have some divine right to that term, but simply because if they say "after review, we don't consider this project to be open source by our definition of open source", developers and organizations may hesitate to contribute to, or use, this project.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#250

Post by BFatts »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #221
sangnoir wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

I think OP meant in the spiritual sense, free software is the original "open-source". A better one, I'd argue, but that's a different discussion.

It might be the original "open source" but it ISN'T open source, per the definition. Open Source was coined for software LONG AFTER the FSF had declared what free software meant.

Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source" is very subjective and not historically accurate.

Post reply on HN