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

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#141

Post by bad_user »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #56
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…

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…

I'm pretty sure that the new license does not "maintain the four freedoms".

I don't know if the FSF will approve of this new license, however by the Free Software definition it should be even more damning, first of all because it violates Freedom 0. The corresponding rule in OSI's definition is less strict ;-)

The "spirit of the GPL" has nothing to do with this license. The GPL is just a "copyright license", meaning that it's concerned only with distribution and with derived works, where distribution and "derived works" are defined by the copyright law.

The GPL is in fact very business friendly and that was by design.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#142

Post by bad_user »

pmontra wrote: post #28
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 Mong…

That's not how licenses work.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#143

Post by bad_user »

dongping wrote: post #72

Open source (~= free software) is aimed to protect the freedom of the user, not the freedom of the (proprietary) software developer. By forcing developers to disclose their changes to MongoDB essentially makes the end-users more free, since they can then replicate more parts of the program they are using. ------------------------------ Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we…

> (proprietary) software developer

Don't know from where you pulled that off, probably inspired by the communist manifesto, but such software developers are also users and the distinction is entirely superficial in order to advance an agenda.

Down with the bourgeoisie, heh?

> By forcing developers to disclose their changes to MongoDB essentially makes the end-users more free, since they can then replicate more parts of the program they are using.

So wait, "end users" are empowered developers now?

Oh, is this a good guys versus bad guys thing?

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#144

Post by bad_user »

weinzierl wrote: post #51

>Like Redis Labs before it, MongoDB has concluded that this license allows a bit too much. In particular, cloud providers are offering access to MongoDB instances without cutting the company in on the resulting revenue stream, and that doesn't feel right. In response, MongoDB has just announced an immediate shift to its brand-new Server Side Public License (SSPL). This paragraph conflates Redis' application of the Co…

Yes, the difference is that Redis' application of the Commons Clause isn't hypocritical.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#145

Post by bad_user »

gowld wrote: post #86
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?

Because it can be cheaper.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#146

Post by mindcrime »

zzzcpan wrote: post #113
mindcrime wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because OSI wasn't formed as a legal entity until 1998 doesn't mean that the people involved weren't around and involved in those earlier discussions of "open source". All OSI did was formalize what was in common usage. And sure, you can cherry pick a few exceptions where individuals used the term in different ways. That has little or nothing to do with contemporary usage. And in today's vernacular (dating back…

Languages don't work like that. You don't just come up with a definition and try to force everyone to use it. People learn definitions from how they are used and mentioned in the things they encounter. In reality almost no one is aware that OSI definition exists and those who do can't even remember what it is exactly. So, no, de-facto definition of open source is definitely not an OSI definition, but mostly literal m…

You don't just come up with a definition and try to force everyone to use it.

Right, and nobody did that.

In reality almost no one is aware that OSI definition exists and those who do can't even remember what it is exactly.

I haven't found that to be the case. At least not for people who are actually involved in the open source community to any serious level. Maybe for casual bystanders.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#147

Post by bad_user »

pessimizer wrote: post #77

Weird thought, but I think that with this license MongoDB has managed to attack the OSI without attacking the FSF. To me, this is perfectly acceptable Free Software but so strict that it basically reads "do not use this software commercially, it requires you to open every piece of software that any of your employees have ever seen or heard of, including software you do not own. Purchase a license from us." In other w…

I've been a Free Software supporter for my entire carrier.

Let's get one thing clear ... this change by MongoDB Inc wasn't done for preserving user freedom, but for preserving their bottom line. Spinning it into anything else is dishonest.

And this is not Free Software in my book because it violates Freedom 0. And I hope the FSF never approves it, or if it does, it just goes to show that the FSF is corrupted.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#148

Post by jbeard4 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #103
jbeard4 wrote: post #90

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 benef…

Has the requirement to share source code to other programs ever been tested in court? For example, based on that could I release a web server and then sue anybody who wouldn't provide source code to their browser to me?

I don't know about RPL, but GPL has been tested a lot. For example, in the early 2000s, Linksys was forced to release the source code of their router firmware. This project was forked and is now maintained in the OpenWrt embedded linux distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWrt

Here is a list of GPL enforcement cases from the Free Software Foundation:

https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#149

Post by trasz »

pjmlp wrote: post #139
trasz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many GPL-licensed operating systems. You could as well compare FreeBSD with Hurd and make the opposite conclusion.

Hurd is not a UNIX clone and that plays a big role in adoption.

How so? You mean the microkernel thingy? It somehow didn't hurt adoption of the most successful desktop Unix out there. The main thing that plays a role in adoption is whether something actually works.

Re: Making the GPL more scary

#150

Post by cyphar »

bhickey wrote: post #134
antirez wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Redis doing this" -> Redis is BSD licensed, but Redis Labs modules that were never part of Redis itself changed license. Note btw that when something is BSD can be relicensed by everybody, both the original copyright owners or anyone else.

> when something is BSD can be relicensed by everybody Relicensing is not something that the BSD license permits. The license family is permissive, but a user doesn't have the right to strip out the copyright notice and call it a day.

I think they meant sublicense, which is something that the BSD license permits (though not as explicitly as MIT) because otherwise you wouldn't be able to use BSD code in GPL projects.
Post reply on HN