Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making the GPL more scary

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#21

Post by jchw »

amingilani wrote: post #9

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but here's an opinion supporting the MongoDB license. Two things: 1. MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like ------------------------------------------------------ The creator of a product: 1. Has a rational interest in maximizing their returns 2. Owns all the rights to their products (barring existing IP restrictions) And if they choose to open source their co…

This won't lead to more open source code. Reading the actual clause lists a myriad of potentially implicated kinds of software, all of which must be open source licensed, and not just that but also under SSPL.

Let's forget about the potential concept that GPLed software like the Linux kernel could very well be implicated, as LWN points out. Regardless, this clause is a literal legal minefield, and I would bet my life savings companies are going to buy commercial licenses rather than open their internal code under SSPL.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#22

Post by fabianhjr »

antt wrote: post #3

I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0. These licenses are a step in a direction closer to what I would like to see, but aren't quite there yet. If you as a person want to run software xyz and try to make money off of it, go ahead. As soon as you open a limited company to reduce your exposure you should be hit with paying license fees. I don't get the ha…

Hi, you might be interested in the discussion around copyfarlft/copyfair touched by Dmytri Kleiner.

http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%233notebook_telekom...

It is sort of similar but includes worker-owned coops. So basically either an individual person or a worker-ownder coop can use a Copyfarleft work for profit.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#23

Post by yarrel »

fabianhjr wrote: post #19

Dmytri Kleiner has something to say about this and published a Copyfarleft license called Peer Production License. http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%233notebook_telekom...

No he doesn't. It's the licensing equivalent of trying to hold your breath until your opponent's face turns blue.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#25

Post by pdpi »

amingilani wrote: post #9

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but here's an opinion supporting the MongoDB license. Two things: 1. MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like ------------------------------------------------------ The creator of a product: 1. Has a rational interest in maximizing their returns 2. Owns all the rights to their products (barring existing IP restrictions) And if they choose to open source their co…

They're allowed to license Mongo on whatever terms they see fit, but we're also allowed to judge them on the licence terms they choose.

If they had a source-provided, not-for-commercial-use hobbyist/educational licence and a proprietary licence, nobody would bat an eyelid. What they seem to be doing instead (this might or might not be correct, but is definitely the point the article is making) is burdening their "open source" licence with enough gotchas that it becomes quite unclear as to whether it's allowable in a commercial production environment (while still getting to claim it's Open Source Software), thus pushing people towards the proprietary licence without outright demanding it — which might be 100% legal, but is also profoundly dishonest.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#26

Post by singingboyo »

amingilani wrote: post #9

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but here's an opinion supporting the MongoDB license. Two things: 1. MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like ------------------------------------------------------ The creator of a product: 1. Has a rational interest in maximizing their returns 2. Owns all the rights to their products (barring existing IP restrictions) And if they choose to open source their co…

The creator certainly has all those rights. On the other hand, it's definitely a goal here to have people use the software - that is, after all, a somewhat necessary precondition to making money off it. Given the difficulties with legally complying here, I'm not sure anyone who comes across this whole thing will want to touch MongoDB with 30ft pole, let alone make it a core component of their project.

From a company perspective, the current legal answer to "What happens if I use this under SSPL for ?" appears to be "the entire site might have to be under SSPL - we don't know". So much for that, I'll use something else.

From an OSS perspective - it's generally considered that to maximise OSS, you want to allow supporting software (compilers, DBs, etc) to be used in commercial/proprietary systems. This can't be, not with a license like this.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#27

Post by nbsd4life »

antt wrote: post #3

I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0. These licenses are a step in a direction closer to what I would like to see, but aren't quite there yet. If you as a person want to run software xyz and try to make money off of it, go ahead. As soon as you open a limited company to reduce your exposure you should be hit with paying license fees. I don't get the ha…

so you want a non-commercial use license. these aren't seen as open source by most people, but perhaps they'll be accepted by users.

calling it open source is harming actual open source projects by making people fear adopting them.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#28

Post by pmontra »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #2

Do I understand it right, that whatever a project I build using MongoDB (i.e. any website/app that uses a MongoDB instance as a backend to store data directly or via a middleware layer or has a feature of connecting to MongoDB) I must open-source it completely? This feels a way too radical if so.

> The only substantive change is an explicit condition that any organization attempting to exploit MongoDB as a service must open source the software that it uses to offer such service

If you're building for example an ecommerce that uses MongoDB as database, you're not selling MongoDB as a service, so you don't need to license your software with this new SSPL.

If you're building an ecommerce as a service with a MongoDB database, again you're not selling MongoDB as a service, so you're safe again.

IANAL + usual disclaimers.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#29

Post by pjmlp »

iSnow wrote: post #16
amingilani wrote: post #9

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but here's an opinion supporting the MongoDB license. Two things: 1. MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like ------------------------------------------------------ The creator of a product: 1. Has a rational interest in maximizing their returns 2. Owns all the rights to their products (barring existing IP restrictions) And if they choose to open source their co…

To me, that feels more like a hidden contract. Giving away for free a software only to require the user to do the same. That's why I prefer BSD-style licenses - when they write "free", they mean "free".

And that is why BSDs will never be as big as Linux, companies don't like to give free beer back to the tap.

Also why all new open source OSes done companies are all based on BSD/MIT licenses like Zephyr, RTOS, Fuchsia, ...

When we get back to PD, Shareware world, don't start complaining companies don't contribute back.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#30

Post by brobdingnagians »

amingilani wrote: post #9

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but here's an opinion supporting the MongoDB license. Two things: 1. MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like ------------------------------------------------------ The creator of a product: 1. Has a rational interest in maximizing their returns 2. Owns all the rights to their products (barring existing IP restrictions) And if they choose to open source their co…

"One could see this change as being just another company trying to go proprietary without actually looking proprietary." -- I think this is the key, they have a right to do what they want and monetize as they want (and I think it is good to monetize), but it somewhat of a misnomer to call them "open source" in the sense of code-sharing freely according to some philosophies.
Post reply on HN