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

261–270 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#261

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #252
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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 FSF concerns itself with defining/defending free software, same as OSI does for open-source. If FSF "concerns itself with much more", I assume you would not have a problem listing some of these things. > No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't…

Ask the FSF yourself. Richard Stallman can be reached via rms@gnu.org and usually responds to emails within a day. The FSF defends the right for others to sell your software, and has wide-reaching political ambitions. Don't just take my word for it, ask them.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#262

Post by BFatts »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #141
vasco wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by me saying that the term might be interpreted differently by different people - since it can't be owned by anyone now that it's in wide use (and hence implying there's different opinions out there) you assume that I fail to see there's a multitude of different opinions on the matter? That's exactly the point I was making.

The only people who interpret the term open source differently from the OSI definition are either wrong or deliberately trying to sow discontent in the open source community.

Kudos for recognizing this. We have the OSD: https://opensource.org/osd

THAT is the definition of the term "Open Source" for all intents and purposes. Anyone else's is just a subjective opinion.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#263

Post by the_af »

amirathi wrote: post #253
the_af wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason What is that good reason? Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem?

> Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source?

Exactly, it's not.

> How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem?

Whether it's bad is a value judgment I can't answer; it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#264

Post by frockington »

vmbrasseur wrote: post #129
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?

There's no fee, and no need to submit any code. The entire approval process is documented on our website: https://opensource.org/approval

Is it your companies official stance that they have the sole right to determine what is OPEN SOURCE code? From an outsider who reads this phrase in countless contexts, this feels like an incredibly naive and non-legally binding opinion

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#265

Post by gregwebs »

My reading of the below essentially says: you cannot offer MongoDB as a (closed) SaaS (without purchasing a license). There will be debate though about how far-reaching this clause is. Note that MongoDB as the copyright holder is giving themselves a different license for running Atlas. I don't know if this is the only change to the license, but the below is certainly not part of the AGPL:

13. Offering the Program as a Service. If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Software or modified version.

"Service Source Code" means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#266

Post by BFatts »

zzzcpan wrote: post #258
BFatts wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OSI owns the definition, yes. You are incorrect. See https://opensource.org/osd which is what DEFINES open source. The term has been around for 20 years. Your lack of understanding the history doesn't make you any kind of an expert.

> The OSI owns the definition No, OSI doesn't own the definition and doesn't get to define open source. Some people agree with that definition, some don't. Nobody has to though. You can't really own what other people think, you can only try to agree on some definition during interaction. No need to pretend there is some universal truth that they just don't know about. It's an agreement, not truth. And OSI might becom…

Yes, they do! They are the ones that put together the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd) which they derived from the DGSL. No one else has defined open source, not even Richard M. Stallman. His definition is for "Free Software", not "Open Source".

So when it comes to who owns the definition, the definitive answer is the OSI. Anything else is just subjective opinions.

You must not work. Because businesses that do REAL BUSINESS and use Open Source are happy that there is the OSD and approved OSI licenses. That way, we can make real, LEGAL decisions. For individual developers, they might have a different idea of what the definition is, but the actual reference to what defines it is at: https://opensource.org/osd

Reading that will clarify what open source is and isn't. Anything else is just "free software" and should hunt down the FSF for licenses and such. RMS has a very different opinion on software that DOES NOT WORK for large corporations.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#267

Post by AsyncAwait »

BFatts wrote: post #250
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.

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.

> Open Source was coined for software LONG AFTER the FSF had declared what free software meant

I know, you COMPLETELY misunderstood my comment.

> Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source"

I don't think he meant open-source and I am not saying he did, as free software defines greater freedoms. I am not a big fan of open-source myself, much prefer free software.

What I am actually trying to say, is that "free-software" was the original way to share code and work on it collaboratively for the commons, ie the thing open-source got inspired by.

What I am saying, is that in certain sense, you could say that Ken Thompson has a grandfatherly hand in Linux, despite him technically not. It's a spiritual hand, if you will.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#268

Post by nepeckman »

lacker wrote: post #222
nepeckman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The server _is_ free. As long as you don't modify the server, you don't have any obligations. If you do modify the server, you're only obligated to publish the changes you made to the server. No one is at risk of violating the license by installing it locally and using it in an application.

The server _is_ free. As long as you don't modify the server, you don't have any obligations. Well, that isn't true any more. If you start selling MongoDB functionality as a service, you now have obligations, even if you didn't modify it.

Yeah good point, though even under this new license, you shouldn't face issues for locally installing the server and using it in your application.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#269

Post by metheus »

nine_k wrote: post #223
johncolanduoni wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MongoDB was already under the AGPL (which adds the copyleft via network provision) so I suspect there is a bigger difference than that.

AGPL requires you to share the changes to the licensed software you make available, that is, changes to the MongoDB itself. It was like LGPL in the local case: you alter the library and make it available through the software you link with it, so you have to share the changes you've made to the library, but not the rest of the linked code. With SSPL, it's like the full GPL in the local case: if you take the licensed s…

> if you take the licensed software, and link it (via rpc / network) to your other software, you must share not only any changes you've made to the licensed part, but the whole thing that uses it.

Slight modification makes this accurate to the SSPL: if you take the licensed software, and link it (via rpc / network) to your other software which you use to offer the SSPL licensed software as a service, you must share...

> Another tricky question is where the border line is.

Ultimately the trigger of the SSPL is whether what you offer publicly is the SSPL-licensed software as a service. It doesn't trigger the SSPL if you make MongoDB available as a service to your application internals as long as what you're making available publicly is not "a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version..."

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#270

Post by AsyncAwait »

BFatts wrote: post #231
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.

No, again someone who doesn't really know the history. Open Source was a way to make free software acceptable to businesses, not subvert the FSF. The FSF's goal is to have ZERO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE at all and that software patents are stupid and should be illegal. So, without such knowledge your statement might make sense. But even stating that OSS subverts FSF is laughable!

> Open Source was a way to make free software acceptable to businesses, not subvert the FSF.

Read my comment again please.

I didn't say subvert the FSF, but some of the things the FSF stands for. This, as you correctly point out, in order to make it more appealing to businesses, which I didn't dispute.

Post reply on HN