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

351–360 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#351

Post by PeterZaitsev »

In my opinion whenever SSPL is classified as Open Source license or not they could have done better job rolling it out.

Making announcement and having all MongoDB Community Software change license the same day for all current major versions (not just new major releases) is not very friendly to users of such software

Many companies which are serious about their software licenses will need to evaluate whenever they can use SSPL, in the meanwhile being left without access to security updates... not a good place to be.

Though I suspect MongoDB would just like such companies to use Commercially Licensed Enterprise Version and not deal with all these Open Source (or not) license change

Advance Submission to OSI and validating it as Open Source License would reduce the concerns of companies looking to use MongoDB Community as they could rely on OSI's legal analyses rather than perform their own

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#352

Post by [deleted] »

Intermernet wrote: post #315
threeseed wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Not whether OSI gives it some arbitrary stamp of approval.

>Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Do you mean legally? If not, Windows 2000 is open source. If so, then that's what the OSI tries to ensure.

[deleted]

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#353

Post by gfosco »

unethical_ban wrote: post #278

I'm embarrassed by the lack of comprehension people have for the idea of the OSI saying something isn't open source. The OSI has been around for a long time, has a consistent track record of helping organize FOSS licenses and create a framework/lexicon for this very purpose. They absolutely have the right to say if something is open source or not, according to their rules, just like anyone here gets to make their opi…

I think it's more about the tone and the caps lock, than the exact words, although you shouldn't be embarrassed if some people disagree and think the phrase has been generalized. If anything, I think it might be embarrassing how many "defenders" jumped in and prolonged this drama, instead of just downvoting and moving on with their day. How's this for a conundrum: I support the OSI being able to claim it isn't "open source" according to them, but I think the top-level post by the VP was unprofessional and rightly called out. (I have not commented elsewhere in this thread.)

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#354

Post by the_af »

amirathi wrote: post #343
the_af wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to debate open source with you, because as you can imagine this is a topic that's been debated for decades, and as any debate that mixes philosophical and technical issues, it's definitely neither easy nor clear cut. Open source is mostly about user rights (making things more confusing, a user is sometimes also a developer !). By restricting the users' right to resell or redistribute the source code of…

> By restricting the users' right to resell or redistribute the source code of your software, you are effectively making it not open source. Then the discussion Open Source ecosystem needs to have is whether "protecting users' right to resell" is net positive or net negative for the ecosystem. And answer could go either ways but that dialogue needs to happen. Last major update amongst any of the popular OSS license w…

It's not the "current textbook definition" but a living consensus. This "dialogue" you want begun decades ago and is still ongoing. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. (If you want an even more difficult debate, there's the "open source" vs "free/libre software" thing: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....)

> Then the discussion Open Source ecosystem needs to have is whether "protecting users' right to resell" is net positive

Well, reselling is not the most important aspect; it's a side-effect of unrestricted users' rights. If you restrict users' rights (e.g. you forbid reselling), open source becomes less appealing and not particularly different to Microsoft's Shared Source and similar proprietary-but-you-can-see-the-source licenses.

By the way, "net positive" is a tricky concept. Open source is in my opinion a "net positive", but it involves some trade-offs. Proprietary licenses like the one you seem to favor also have trade-offs.

> it's time to review and see if we need an additional license that's net positive for the ecosystem.

Which ecosystem is that?

To be honest, it seems to me you don't want an open source license. And that's fine. Not sure why you want open source to change its meaning to what you propose (which isn't new either), instead of simply accepting the license you want/need is not open source.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#355

Post by mindcrime »

muks wrote: post #200
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 "…

The OSD may not be the de-jure definition of "open source", but it is the de-facto definition. The statement above is correct in all but a trivial, pedantic sense.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#356

Post by mindcrime »

threeseed wrote: post #276
bunderbunder wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, yes, technically, OSI does not own the term open source, and it could be that this license does comply with everything set out in the Open Source Definition ( https://opensource.org/osd ), and that means that, technically, "(the latest version of) MongoDB is not open source" is overstating the case. Except that, as a non-lawyer developer who generally agrees with the Open Source Definition, "under an OSI-approved…

Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Not whether OSI gives it some arbitrary stamp of approval.

No, most people accept the OSD as the de-facto definition of "open source".

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#357

Post by plopz »

the_af wrote: post #341
plopz wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My definition is the same as his. Is there a poll or survey somewhere that determined what the commonly accepted definition was?

Well, besides OSI's definition -- which I understand is being questioned in this comments section, so I suppose mentioning it is begging the question -- most of the bibliography and articles out there use "open source" in the sense I mentioned. Microsoft was also aware of the accepted meaning, which is why they introduced their "Shared Source Initiative" back in the old days (note how deviously careful they were abou…

Honestly, this comment section is the first time I've heard about the OSI, I guess whenever I read articles that use "open source" I've assumed a definition that may not be technically correct. I would hazard a guess that my definition is probably more widely held but that could just be my personal bias.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#358

Post by [deleted] »

DannyBee wrote: post #29
vslira wrote: post #18

I'm not an expert in licenses, could someone weight in and explain how the AGPLv3 was being abused? Did the mentioned companies follow the spirit of the license and were getting away with something the company didn't like or were they just improperly distributing the software, regardless of licensing terms? Also: "So while the SSPL isn’t all that different from the GNU GPLv3,(...) [it] explicitly states that anybody…

Speaking as a lawyer: There was no abuse, there was only mongo not being able to make money in all cases they wanted to. That's what they see as abuse. It isn't. While they complain of bad actors, bad actors always act bad. This will not disincentivize them (they are also often in a lot of interesting jurisdictions that would make it hard anyway). Instead, this is really about making it completely unpalatable for nor…

[deleted]

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#359

Post by nrook »

swozey wrote: post #105
super3 wrote: post #64

What really should happen is that the large cloud companies (really just Google, Amazon, and Azure) should be providing a portion of the revenue generated to the open source projects. The open source companies would make more features and drive more usage. Everybody wins. It makes no sense that the large cloud providers make billions off OSS, and don't give something more sustainable back. Classic tragedy of the comm…

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…

How much of the money donated to organizations like CNCF or the Linux Foundation goes to the individual contributors who build these products?

They do help in some respects: I don't think Kubernetes would be as successful were it not for the big conferences put on by the CNCF. And, of course, lots of companies actually are contributing code back to Kubernetes particularly (and Linux, and some other projects). But there are also a lot of popular open source projects which are used by lots of big companies but don't get either code or money from them.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#360

Post by pron »

If SaaS vendors haven't opened their software that uses Mongo under AGPL then I would assume that the additional software (which would count as another "part of the aggregate" according to AGPL), then it must have been substantial. In that case, how does one determine if one is "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"?

I assume that an online game that uses Mongo to store player data clearly does not derive its value mostly from the database, but is the value of a PaaS built on Mongo, with an elaborate UI and management services derived primarily from the value of Mongo or not? Is the value of an online recipe management service? In both cases I can see compelling arguments in either direction.

One could argue that if the value derived primarily from the DB, then very little software would need to be added and open sourcing it would not be an issue. That vendors don't open source their software shows that they believe its value does not come primarily from Mongo, and so they would be able to continue using it under the new license, defeating Mongo's purpose.

Post reply on HN