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

81–90 of 151 posts

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#81

Post by anticensor »

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…

> will always have an obligation to their own interests first,

The producer will usually favor its own interests. Not always. You could have used SQLite. No one forced you to use Mongo.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#82

Post by LeoPanthera »

gowld wrote: post #80

Title is misleading. The article is about a new license, MongoDB's Server Side Public License, that is scarier (to freeloaders) than the GPL.

People who use free software are not “freeloaders” and there’s no need to use such a derogatory term here.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#83

Post by aequitas »

cyphar wrote: post #74
aequitas wrote: post #59

> "Service Source Code" means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, al…

It should also be noted that they require the "Service Source Code" to be provided under the terms of their license . So it's not possible for anyone to follow these restrictions even on a fully free software stack if any part of that stack is copyleft (for instance, Linux).

That was what first caught my eye as well, which would make it impossible.

> The affected code must not only be released, it must be made available under the SSPL.

But I think it should be interpreted that if you modify the code (mongodb) under SSPL it should be distributed under the same license, like is normal for other open source licenses.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#84

Post by gowld »

thu wrote: post #57

Wouldn't it be possible for an entity such as Amazon to establish a separate legal entity and thus circumvent MongoDB's Server Side Public License ? The separate entity would provide the "raw" service (where there wouldn't be much to open source) to Amazon, possibly running MongoDB directly on their infrastructure, then Amazon would turn it into a full-fledged SaaS offer.

A SaaS offer sounds like offering MongoDB as a service. The lawyers would enjoy hashing that out for billable hours.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#85

Post by gowld »

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…

Corporations are made of people.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#86

Post by gowld »

polyomino wrote: post #31

This has the potential to backfire spectacularly. If anyone is able to abide by this license and offer mongodb as a service, they will dramatically lower the barrier to entry for mongodb hosting. Mongo is betting that their service is uncommodifiable. Perhaps they want to get out of the hosting game altogether, make their money consulting. In that case they’d have made a very competitive hosting market to drive down…

Why would a competitor be better at hosting mongodb than mongodb company itself?

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#87

Post by kevin_b_er »

geokon wrote: post #68
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 article seems to suggest it can't be used with even Linux b/c Linux isn't under the SSPL. So the license seems to in effect make the software effectively unusable 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 w…

Because MongoDB is no longer open source. It is a sham license that says it is open source, but isn't, forcing pretty much everyone to use the proprietary license.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#88

Post by antt »

codetrotter wrote: post #17
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…

> I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0. So basically, turn freedom 0 into not freedom 0. For reference, GNU freedom 0 is “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”. What you are saying seems to go against the principles of freedom 0, and I don’t get your motivation either, because at the same time you don’t seem to mind proprietary s…

>For reference, GNU freedom 0 is “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”.

That depends on what your definition of "you" and "you wish" is.

If your boss tells you to run X then you are not the one wanting to run it, the company is. And, American jurisprudence not notwithstanding, I don't consider corporations to be a form of "you".

If a sole proprietor with full legal liability for their actions wanted to do the same, more power to them. No matter how many people they hire to do the work for them.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#89

Post by imtringued »

eadmund wrote: post #58
brobdingnagians wrote: post #32

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.…

> 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 Was that the point of free software? I thought that the point was freedom: that users be permitted to use, modify & redistribute the software they use. Inclusion of BSD-licensed code in proprietary software fails at that: a macOS user is unable to use macOS…

You're forgetting that those businesses that depend on your software are your users.

The first step of making useful software is by having users. If nobody uses your software because of licensing reasons nobody will ever contribute to it and it might as well not exist. On the other hand if there are users then there is a chance that a subset of the users will contribute back voluntarily.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#90

Post by jbeard4 »

I wonder why the RPL isn't more popular for this. It's an OSI-approved license that is meant to fix the "SAAS loophole":

PREAMBLE

The Reciprocal Public License (RPL) is based on the concept of reciprocity or, if you prefer, fairness.

In short, this license grew out of a desire to close loopholes in previous open source licenses, loopholes that allowed parties to acquire open source software and derive financial benefit from it without having to release their improvements or derivatives to the community which enabled them. This occurred any time an entity did not release their application to a "third party".

While there is a certain freedom in this model of licensing, it struck the authors of the RPL as being unfair to the open source community at large and to the original authors of the works in particular. After all, bug fixes, extensions, and meaningful and valuable derivatives were not consistently finding their way back into the community where they could fuel further, and faster, growth and expansion of the overall open source software base.

While you should clearly read and understand the entire license, the essence of the RPL is found in two definitions: "Deploy" and "Required Components".

Regarding deployment, under the RPL your changes, bug fixes, extensions, etc. must be made available to the open source community at large when you Deploy in any form -- either internally or to an outside party. Once you start running the software you have to start sharing the software.

Further, under the RPL all components you author including schemas, scripts, source code, etc. -- regardless of whether they're compiled into a single binary or used as two halves of client/server application -- must be shared. You have to share the whole pie, not an isolated slice of it.

In addition to these goals, the RPL was authored to meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition as maintained by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).

https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5

Post reply on HN