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

371–380 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#371

Post by mr_toad »

joshsimmons wrote: post #164
sam0x17 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Microsoft issuing a warning that they have not yet verified that Linux is a "real" operating system, and to stay tuned for their final judgement. The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. 2. Al…

Open source is a term of art with an agreed upon definition, and it has been for 20 years which, not-so-coincidentally, is also when the Open Source Initiative was founded. The fact that you've never heard of OSI means we've been doing our job well enough that you've never needed to know about it. The fact that you've never heard of OSI does NOT mean that it's not legitimate, and frankly, that kind of rhetoric is jus…

A term of art is a description not a prescription.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#372

Post by sam0x17 »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #180
sam0x17 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Microsoft issuing a warning that they have not yet verified that Linux is a "real" operating system, and to stay tuned for their final judgement. The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. 2. Al…

Regarding number 2: by that definition of yours, Microsoft Shared Source Initiative in the early 2000s was also "open source". See the problem with not having a precise and standardized definition?

People wouldn't say "free and open source" or "a permissive open source license" if "open source" was already sufficiently descriptive, so I think in the back of their minds people already believe what I put forward here, at least a little bit. If the source code is available to the general public, it is open source. The source code is in the open. If a company decides to release source code with no license at all to redistribute or modify, solely so people can verify that their software does what they say it does, they still should be applauded for at least sharing their code rather than keeping it closed source, and what they would be doing would in my book still be "open source". Once again, if the source code is open, it is open source. If this wasn't the common definition, then people would never say "permissive open source license" because it would be implied.

Instead we have created this environment where if you aren't willing to "go all the way" and give people the right to modify/redistribute your code in some permissive way, you are basically pressured to not release your code at all. As a community we would have access to more code bases if this wasn't true. I totally agree that companies should embrace permissive open source licenses, but when that doesn't make sense, I totally think they should embrace non-permissive open source licenses. This is a minority opinion, however.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#373

Post by gonzo »

BFatts wrote: post #241
nemo44x wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bruce attempted to register a certification mark (a type of trademark), but the application lapsed in 1999 after OSI discovered that there was virtually zero chance of registering the term "open source" as a mark, as the term is too descriptive.

OSI has "OSI Certified" as a registered trademark (a certification mark).

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#374

Post by icebraining »

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.

No, the OSD according to the OSI requires much more than seeing and modifying.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#375

Post by gonzo »

brentonator wrote: post #288
darkarmani wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase You are really hung up on this. Where did they say they were restricting the use of the phrase? If they said: "MongoDB is not good software" would you be saying they aren't allowed to restrict MongoDB from saying they are good software?

This VP specifically states MongoDB "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE" presumably referencing their own organization's definition of open source. What's worse is their current definition technically qualifies MongoDB as open source. She conflates a non-OSI-approved license with the definition of open source very blatantly. As someone just above said open source for many simply means the source code is open (can be viewed). Edit: R…

there is no registered mark for the term "Open Source". It's too descriptive.

Therefore, it's not genericized and nobody holds it.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#376

Post by gonzo »

BFatts wrote: post #239
coldtea wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Open Source is a term coined by the OSI. No, it's not: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html And even if it was, popular terms reach beyond the persons/organizations that coined them. Unless it's trademarked, it's just a term all kinds of people use, many of which don't know/care about OSI. In fact: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

Okay, pedantry... If you want to be specific: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... But it was done coincidentally with the discussions that ultimately led to the OSI and the OSD. >> Bruce Perens has applied to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. The trademark conditions will be known as the ``Open Source Definition'', essentially the sa…

Bruce attempted to register a certification mark (a type of trademark), but the application lapsed in 1999 after OSI discovered that there was virtually zero chance of registering the term "open source" as a mark, as the term is too descriptive.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#377

Post by [deleted] »

merb wrote: post #210
wmf wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#378

Post by icebraining »

axaxs wrote: post #259
darkarmani wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase You are really hung up on this. Where did they say they were restricting the use of the phrase? If they said: "MongoDB is not good software" would you be saying they aren't allowed to restrict MongoDB from saying they are good software?

Open source is mostly objective, unlike 'good software'. The parent comment stated in caps that MongoDB is not open source, which is objectively untrue. It's a silly thing to bicker about, but the original should have probably said something along the lines of 'OSI approved open source license'.

The only objective definition of Open Source I know of is OSI's. Everything else is a hodge-podge of whatever the user of the word feels it's open. Is it reading the code? Modifying it? Redistributing it? There's no consensus besides OSI.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#379

Post by nulagrithom »

bunderbunder wrote: post #292
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.

That's a fine interpretation of the term for amateurs. By which I mean, it's probably fine to think of things that way when you're working in an amateur capacity. If you're working in a non-amateur capacity, thinking about things that way could result in unwittingly exposing yourself to more legal risk than you want.

No, it has nothing to do with "amateurs". Whether the source is open and what the license dictates are two wholly different things. The danger is exactly in conflating the two.

Take for example the NPOSL-3.0:

A variant of the Open Software License 3.0, this license requires that the organization using it is a non-profit and that no revenue is generated from sale of the software, support or services.

https://tldrlegal.com/license/non-profit-open-software-licen...

The source is open, but you can't use it outside of non-profit orgs. It's "Open Source™", it's approved by OSI, and it can still get you in legal trouble.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#380

Post by kemitchell »

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

The process I underwent for The License Zero Reciprocal Public License last year, and the process described to me by participants affiliated with OSI during those discussions, did not match the process described on the page you linked at the time, especially its "What Will Happen" section. At least one participating member of the board seemed to be learning, as well.

Best I can tell, the process page was prepared by a former board member pushing to reform the process and make it transparent. It was and remains aspirational. But those aspirations aren't shared by remaining participants with sway.

The most straightforward summary of the process I received was that discussion proceeds on the mailing list until it reaches consensus, and then it's entirely within the board's discretion what it does or does not do. It was also written repeatedly that the board may not approve professionally drafted, novel, OSD-conformant licenses, for unspecified policy reasons.

Post reply on HN