71–80 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. Ref please? The FSF was certainly around pushing for "free software" long before "open source" was commonly used to refer to copyleft / permissive licenses. And the sole purpose for OSI's existence is exactly to define what is and is not "open source". In any case, it is very important to define t…
> Ref please? Both ESR and the OSI will tell you this. For example http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html > Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug. The OSI tried and failed to trademark 'open source' - because it's simply a description. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... > We have discovered that there i…
From Wikipedia [1]:
> Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is data collected from publicly available sources to be used in an intelligence context.
IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related.
Whether or not they could trademark the term, when people in our community say "open source", they specifically mean something which matches OSI or FSF's definitions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If MongoDB started as a community OSS then I am wrong in this case, but about other open-source companies companies that want to protect their rights in not getting exploited by other for-profit entities that might use the product and profit from it? even AGPL guaranties nothing in most real-world cases.
Well here's the question- how are they getting exploited? If I release code for people to use for free, and people use it, where's the exploitation? I can understand why some people would not choose to give their code away for free, but trying to be both open source while having the benefits of being closed source seems like they are trying to exploit the open source community.
Would love to see an overview of companies that fell into the mongoDB trap and have / are migrating to another DB store.
What you do mean by the "mongoDB trap"? Are you saying companies are hurt by the license, or are you saying companies are hurt by software's behavior (e.g. consistency model)?
Then their sales people started coming around and asking for insane sums of money (like $10,000 per instance per year plus 100% markup on hardware to run in AWS - support is extra). They were worried about amazon and others offering a better so next they changed the license.
If it had been SQL it would have been easy to drop in another database. But Mongodb is so different from anything else that you need a major rewrite to get away from it. Postgres has some similiar functionality but it’s not drop in. Amazon has a more or less public beta of DocumentDB which as far as I can tell is a mongodb compatible interface to aurora backend - it works but doesn’t have the polish of RDS yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monsanto provides you genetic code packed into a seed and forbids you from profiting from new seeds derived from it by your own work. Is this ethical? Mongo provides you computer code packed into a tarball and forbids you from profiting from new code derived from it by your own work. Is this ethical? Is either example more or less ethical if the price is, or is not, $0? That’s the debate in a nutshell. (I declare no…
Is the GPL ethical ? It also gives you source code but attaches some pretty significant conditions that in most cases would prevent you from profiting from new code derived from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Postgres supports querying json
Has anyone actually used json-based queries in PG in a nontrivial way, and had a good experience? I looked into it but the SQL syntax for doing json operations was crazy complicated, and I had trouble finding an ORM that did a good job of simplifying it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since it's literally impossible to comply with the article 13 of SSPL, MongoDB's license definitely doesn't give its users freedom 0[1], as defined by FSF. [1] - The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose
Could you please explain why it is impossible to comply with?
In practice, it's impossible because you aren't the copyright holder of your kernel, firmware, webserver etc. so you can't change their license to SSPL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Postgres supports querying json
Has anyone actually used json-based queries in PG in a nontrivial way, and had a good experience? I looked into it but the SQL syntax for doing json operations was crazy complicated, and I had trouble finding an ORM that did a good job of simplifying it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ref please? Both ESR and the OSI will tell you this. For example http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html > Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug. The OSI tried and failed to trademark 'open source' - because it's simply a description. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... > We have discovered that there i…
While ESR's link establishes precedence, it doesn't actually tell me what it means in an intelligence context. From Wikipedia [1]: > Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is data collected from publicly available sources to be used in an intelligence context. IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related.…
ESR says specifically that it's related - he says the relation is a 'feature' of the name, even.