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

401–410 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#401

Post by gshipley »

reacharavindh wrote: post #2

At the outset, it sounds simple that MongoDB inc thinks why should some 3rd party cloud provider (AWS, GCP, DO and the like) be allowed to run MongoDB as a service and make money while MongoDB contributes the biggest part of the open source project that is MongoDB. But, it feels like yet another fallacy. What really is an open source project then? Say some developer X contributes to a project like MongoDB his/her ope…

"Imagine if all projects did the same... Say Docker?...."

Wait just one second here. Is docker still open source or is Moby the new open source docker?

https://blog.docker.com/2017/04/introducing-the-moby-project...

My understanding is that recent versions of docker is indeed not open source but moby is? Is that correct according to the OSI?

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#402

Post by cyphar »

nulagrithom wrote: post #379
bunderbunder wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Huh, how on earth did that get approved. It violates Section 6 of the definition: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" (which specifically has the example of discrimination by disallowing software use within a business).

Personally I never liked the OSI's definition of "open source", and the FSF definition of free software has always felt (for me) to be far more fundamental.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#403

Post by nickpsecurity »

gshulegaard wrote: post #84
babuskov wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I generally agree with you. I just wanted to point out that from an Economic perspective this: > I don't feel like Google/Amazon/etc. owe anything to anyone just because they made it and now have a lot of money. And the ability to utilize that war chest to cannibalize the best of open source to create private differentiators raises the barrier of entry for competition. This market would naturally drift towards an oli…

Ill add patent trolling and copyright issues like API ruling to what you said. The companies with money can pay bribes to weaken or block FOSS activity in varios ways. Better if OSS/FOSS companies have business models with money to fight that.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#404

Post by cyphar »

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…

> What's worse is their current definition technically qualifies MongoDB as open source.

I don't agree, the modified section 13 appears (at least to me) to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of section 9 of the OSD:

> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software. [...] For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

The new SSPL requires that all of your server configuration and tools be distributed under the terms of the SSPL. This is so badly worded that it could include your operating system kernel (which, on Linux, would not be possible since GPLv2 is incompatible with this new license).

Also, the scope of "providing a service" isn't limited to network services (which is what you'd think). No, it applies to any service "includ[ing], without limitation [...] 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'm sure you can easily come up with some examples whether this concept of "providing a service" will run into strange consequences when your accountant is giving you a download link for MongoDB as well as all of Windows.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#405

Post by jchw »

e12e wrote: post #298
jchw wrote: post #68

People weren't "testing the boundaries" of AGPL. You need to know nearly nothing about AGPL to understand this. The bottom line is, AGPL merely requires you to publish your modifications. But if cloud providers are offering essentially a vanilla MongoDB instance, there is no reason they are compelled to buy a commercial license. Still, I wonder where MongoDB actually wants the boundary drawn. Anyone that tries to off…

And will they break the protocol in order to break compatability with AGPL forks?

This would be futile. The forks could still implement the protocol changes as long as they didn't take code from upsteam to do so.

I believe there is also case law that supports the legality of reverse engineering for interoperabilility as well. I wonder if that has implications on this.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#406

Post by gshipley »

pas wrote: post #277
amyjess wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a violation of provision 9 of the Open Source Definition and the DFSG. It's going to backfire hard when distros start removing Mongo from their main repos.

Mongo already provides their own repos, and recommends using that for install and updates. I don't think they care or anyone seriously wanting to develop something on/around Mongo does either.

The same can be said for docker?

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#407

Post by theclaw »

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…

I certainly learned some things today. I didn’t realise ‘open source’ had such a specific meaning, and I understand why it’s useful to establish the definition so there is no ambiguity.

Reading the replies to this thread is like watching hippies fight over the definition of free love.

Open source doesn’t mean anything unless we all agree on one definition, and while idealistic developers might reject the idea of central authorities to uphold the meaning of things now, they forget that it was idealistic developers just like them that realised an agreed definition was required and established the OSI 20 years ago to uphold it.

The OSI is not the man telling you what you can and can’t do - a shared and agreed definition of what open source is clearly benefits all of us, and if you just invent your own definition through ignorance or sheer bloody mindedness then you’re not legally in the wrong, but you could find yourself embarassed, exploited, or otherwise screwed through not understanding what the consensus definition is.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#408

Post by MrStonedOne »

theclaw wrote: post #407
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…

I certainly learned some things today. I didn’t realise ‘open source’ had such a specific meaning, and I understand why it’s useful to establish the definition so there is no ambiguity. Reading the replies to this thread is like watching hippies fight over the definition of free love. Open source doesn’t mean anything unless we all agree on one definition, and while idealistic developers might reject the idea of cent…

We are arguing over rather or not a body saying they haven't reviewed rather or not something fits a definition qualifies as not fitting that definition.

The answer is no, it does not, hence why OSI's statement is inaccurate.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#409

Post by Intermernet »

icebraining wrote: post #374
Intermernet wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yes, the OSD tries to include legality in "seeing and modifying". If you regard Open Source as just "seeing and modifying" the source then anything that you can get the source code for is Open Source. This is most definitely not the case, as illustrated by my previous example of Windows 2000. Please see [0] and [1] for more info. Confusingly, there are still copies of the W2K source on github which have an MIT license in the root which is, I assume, false and unauthorized by MS [2].

[0]: https://news.microsoft.com/2004/02/12/statement-from-microso...

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-takes-pirated-windows-nt-...

[2]: https://github.com/pustladi/Windows-2000/blob/master/LICENSE

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#410

Post by candeira »

cyphar wrote: post #402
nulagrithom wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Huh, how on earth did that get approved. It violates Section 6 of the definition: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" (which specifically has the example of discrimination by disallowing software use within a business). Personally I never liked the OSI's definition of "open source", and the FSF definition of free software has always felt (for me) to be far more fundamental.

If you never liked the OSI's definition of "open source", what do you think about the Debian Free Software Guidelines?

About the discrimination of fields of endeavour, please read the sibling comment to yours. I think you and the grandparent have both misunderstood the license.

Post reply on HN