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

381–390 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#381

Post by chaostheory »

mrkurt wrote: post #306
chaostheory wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abuse is taking all the free candy at a doctor's office. This is a bad analogy for software, since software is not a finite resource. Anyone can make a near infinite number of copies. Don't blame 3rd parties when you realized that an open source license is the wrong license for your product.

It's bad analogy, but the candy bowl in this particular example is "revenue available to companies selling this stuff". The cost to duplicate these things is 0, but the available income is fixed.

I'm assuming you're not being sarcastic. Is there a monopoly on SAAS for Mongo?

I don't think this takes away from MongoDB picking the wrong license and business model.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#382

Post by sbr464 »

This question isn't directly associated with MongoDB, please forgive my lack of OSS license expertise.

I was curious if exceptions were allowed under licenses like these. For example, if a company releases a GPL licensed product, (or SSPL etc) and wishes to create another product/service that they don't wish to open source, but it's based on the GPL/SSPL codebase. Could they make exceptions or separate license agreements to go around their own license choice? Would it be different if it were a third party they would like to give this exception to?

In similar regard, would MongoDB have to prove that they are paying full licenses/Enterprise agreements to themselves to be able to run Atlas (their own cloud offering) and not open source Atlas? Or is there a self exclusion allowed etc? Or would they just sell themselves the licenses for $0.01 cent to get around the requirement?

Truly interested in this question.

Edit - and to clarify, not if the exception is stated directly in the license like a new modified MIT etc, but inherent to the existing popular OSS licenses.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#383

Post by Lazare »

sbr464 wrote: post #382

This question isn't directly associated with MongoDB, please forgive my lack of OSS license expertise. I was curious if exceptions were allowed under licenses like these. For example, if a company releases a GPL licensed product, (or SSPL etc) and wishes to create another product/service that they don't wish to open source, but it's based on the GPL/SSPL codebase. Could they make exceptions or separate license agreem…

If I own a block of code, I can release it under as many licenses as I like, even if those licenses would totally conflict, and then each one of my users will need to track which license they received it under and adhere to those terms (only). So yes, I can give Users 1, 4, and 5 a copy under the GPL, and then users 2 and 3 a copy under some commercial license, user 6 under some GPL incompatible copyleft license, no problem.

The key is where you say "wishes to create another product/service that they don't wish to open source, but it's based on the GPL/SSPL codebase". You're not creating it based on the GPL codebase, you're creating it on the codebase you own. The fact you've previously licensed it under X, Y or Z licenses is irrelevant; you can always release it again, in whole or in part, with whatever license you like. (But of course, whatever you released under the GPL is still out there, under the GPL; there's no take backs!) And you can also, of course, use it yourself however you like.

The key is ownership. If you own the copyright on the code, you're fine. If you don't, you must adhere strictly to the license which the actual owners granted you. To the extent that MongoDB (the company) owns the copyright on all the code, they're free to use it how they like, and release it as often as they like under whatever licenses they like.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#384

Post by icebraining »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #320
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.

You may be talking past another. I guess what GP was asking is whether OSI has a trademark, copyright, or something else for the term "open source"? The term "open source" has been generically used for much longer than OSI's existence.

The term "open source" has been generically used for much longer than OSI's existence.

I've seen this claim before, but could never find any evidence of it actually being applied to software before OSI came around.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#385

Post by wongarsu »

sbr464 wrote: post #382

This question isn't directly associated with MongoDB, please forgive my lack of OSS license expertise. I was curious if exceptions were allowed under licenses like these. For example, if a company releases a GPL licensed product, (or SSPL etc) and wishes to create another product/service that they don't wish to open source, but it's based on the GPL/SSPL codebase. Could they make exceptions or separate license agreem…

You can allow the general public to use your code under the SSPL, give somebody else the same code under the GPL, give a proprietary licence to somebody else who paid you money, and use it yourself in a way that would violate any of those licences. Licences you give out can't really restrict you, since you own the copyright of the code.

The piece in the puzzle that allows MongoDB Inc. to act like that is the Contributor Agreement [1] which makes any contributor assign copyright of contributions to MongoDB Inc. This way MongoDB Inc. is has all rights on the source code and can licence it to anyone under any licence.

[1]: https://www.mongodb.com/legal/contributor-agreement

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#386

Post by sbr464 »

Lazare wrote: post #383
sbr464 wrote: post #382

This question isn't directly associated with MongoDB, please forgive my lack of OSS license expertise. I was curious if exceptions were allowed under licenses like these. For example, if a company releases a GPL licensed product, (or SSPL etc) and wishes to create another product/service that they don't wish to open source, but it's based on the GPL/SSPL codebase. Could they make exceptions or separate license agreem…

If I own a block of code, I can release it under as many licenses as I like, even if those licenses would totally conflict, and then each one of my users will need to track which license they received it under and adhere to those terms (only). So yes, I can give Users 1, 4, and 5 a copy under the GPL, and then users 2 and 3 a copy under some commercial license, user 6 under some GPL incompatible copyleft license, no…

Thanks for that detailed reply.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#387

Post by MrStonedOne »

icebraining wrote: post #378
axaxs wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But their definition does not restrict it to OSI approved licenses, so their assertion its not open source because it hasn't been approved is not valid.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#388

Post by icebraining »

BFatts wrote: post #247
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....

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.

Sure it does. I've worked in multiple growing for-profit companies that released all their software as (A/L)GPL.

It might not work with certain business models, but that's alright, others would fill their place.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#389

Post by wongarsu »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #313
putlake wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just release it into the public domain then?

Many countries don't have the US concept of public domain, including the one where I live ("in the public domain" actually means something quite different in British English). But the WTFPL also makes a statement and one of which I approve.

public domain is indeed a bad idea, but CC0 is a great equivalent that works worldwide

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#390

Post by kemitchell »

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…

Abuse isn't a legal concept here. It's condemnation of specific business conduct, specifically a kind of free riding. That's for businessfolk to debate. Lawyers read the licenses, but business managers decide how to use them, to what ends, and why.

The cloud competitors MongoDB professes concern about have sophisticated software license counsel. They're very good at reading licenses. That is part of the claimed problem: They were good enough to see and exploit loopholes in a dense, oddly drafted license like AGPLv3, which most others read as "free for free software only", rather than as written. They also have deep pockets, US legal nexus, and significant ongoing commercial use to enjoin. The latter make a wide target. But the former makes them too strong to sue on anything but firm ground.

I don't know what you mean by normal actors, but if there are a lot of them, and they're relatively small, and also potential Mongo customers, suing them en mass to make examples, RIAA/MPAA-style, isn't nearly as appealing as cutting big cloud providers offering MongoDB off from updates with a license change. Everything about these changes and the materials accompanying points to the latter.

I don't see Mongo announcing any litigation campaign for going beyond AGPLv3 permission. I do see Mongo drawing a new line in the sand, via a new license for new releases, that will be easier to defend against the specific competitors they see pushing the limits of the old line.

Post reply on HN