61–70 of 151 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll accept a pull request with no CLA so long as the code is of decent quality. If you accept contributions without a CLA, you are not the sole owner of the copyrights anymore and you cannot offer a proprietary paid branch, unless all contributors give you permission to relicense their AGPL code as proprietary.
Yep, and I'm perfectly fine with this. If someone wants a non-copyleft branch, they can pay me to rewrite the features I didn't author, otherwise I will exclude the added code from said pull request. Its a definite edge case, but if I can get active contributors, I am not about to ask them to sign a CLA.
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…
You're forgetting to mention that open source != free software. I have no problem with the license itself, because it maintains the four freedoms. So from a free software perspective it's fine, and that's the spirit of GPL. However, if I was a business owner, I would never run software under that license because it may create unforeseeable license conflicts. As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), any software…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true - if you compare various cases of GPL vs BSD, the theory of GPL helping the project just doesn’t hold. See MySQL vs Postgres, or GCC vs LLVM, or various MTAs.
LLVM in particular lacks many improvements done by embedded OEMs, one of them being Sony which has only contributed parts of the PS4 toolchain.
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 License Means More Open Source Code You're going to get flak for this because you're factually incorrect. The SSPL is not an open source license. It might as well contain a clause that says "Thou shall not compete with MongoDB." As far as I can tell it was submitted to the OSI in bad faith.
It seems like it is to me, it's just extremely protective of the source code owner's rights.
> "Thou shall not compete with MongoDB."
Sounds to me like, "thou shall not offer MongoDB, and your own custom tooling, in your cloud without talking to us about licensing fees or making your cloud tech open source."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kind of the point though. BSD is truly free, and that means there are a lot of proprietary products which benefit massively from it and create worthwhile products with clear monetization strategies and thrive. Sure, they might not contribute back, but the point of the open source was often to share code to improve the state of the art and provide useful code for people so they don't have to start from scratch.…
I think most of the commenters on my post misunderstood me very much. I think people should be free to license under GPL, AGPL, SSPL, VXMPL, or whatever the heck they want. I like BSD personally, and it meets my requirements, but someone who has a different need can do what they want. I think GPL has worked well for Linux, and I'm glad they did it the way they did; I think it is less free than BSD, but in a good way…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Worst case someone extends one of my AGPLv3 projects, adding features and improving it. I'll accept a pull request with no CLA so long as the code is of decent quality. Notice that it is perfectly fine to be "open source" without being "open development". Many free software projects do not actually accept pull requests as a matter of principle.
I've run into projects run like this, but I would love to get some driveby pull requests. Sadly the segment I work in has very few software developers, but lots of people who are (needlessly) scared of the licensing bogeyman.
In that case, you canmake a driveby issue. This will be preferable for them and easier for you.
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…
Which in a way isn't their fault.. there is a weird license lock-in that seems to happen with licenses and it really forces your hand to use a particular license for practical reasons
I know for instance Clojure is all under the EPL - so it makes it a weird licensing issue to use it with GPL code (The way I understand it is that you can, if you basically treat it all like GPL code.. maybe?)
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…
Of course the latter practice is very common with this style of licenses and doing a bait and switch like this on the license is always a bit controversial, no matter what the intentions. AGPL style licenses without copyright transfer agreements are very uncommon as re-licensing becomes near impossible without full agreement of all copyright holders. This means none of them are able to use the software they worked on other than under the strict terms of the license, which typically precludes many potentially interesting ways of using the software. AGPL as a license is only interesting if you can opt out from it. This is only possible if you own the copyright.
QED