111–120 of 291 posts
Should I sell MongoDB? In around $29 last year and have seen 450% return... The concern was always it becomes next X
My guess is it won't have a big impact, because customers who care about the license being open source probably wouldn't have been paying MongoDB in the first place.
A lot of people advocate PostgreSQL as a replacement. Why not elasticsearch? It’s also a document store with a good history. At a previous job I shipped Mongo as the store (under AGPL) because at the time the replication story for PGSQL was too complex compared to mongo. But I reached a point where I was going to replace Mongo with elasticsearch and get rid of Solr at the same time.
Has this changed?
Serious question: can someone explain why the server side public license is not an open source license, with specific reference to AGPL? Is it because of the provision forcing the source code release of auxillary software used to run the software as a service? As far as I can tell, it meets the FSF's free software definition and the only that seems questionable in the OSI's open source definition is point 9.
> can someone explain why the server side public license is not an open source license Depends on what you think 'open source' licence means. The source is literally openly available. There are just some extra restrictions on what you can do with it. The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence.
Undisclosed personal definitions are an unnecessary impediment to mutual understanding.
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)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
this is totally beyond me. So a company making a profit from a product made by another company by just hosting it is not exploitation? Does this happen in any industry? A company that makes product for free and another takes it as is and sells it is not an exploitation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting that people would pay amazon, but not mongodb...
I work in the enterprise and we spend tens of millions a year with AWS. Our Security, Cloud Engineering and Finance teams understand VPC, IAM, Costs etc back to front and so when you add a new AWS product they know how to manage, secure, finance and support it. And of course there is no Procurement process with adding a new AWS product. With a managed MongoDB (even though it's on AWS) you need to get buy in from doze…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why not just use a RDMS from day one?
Because we had data that fit better in a non relational store. We stored data that created from user generated forms and we loaded data back into those forms. Why use a relational store? If you’re working with a system that will only be read and written by an object based language? Why keep converting back and forth between a relational model and an object oriented model? In C# var seniorMales = from c in context.Cus…
Well I can't tell you what the right choice in your system is, but in the general case I think going with a relational model by default generally makes sense because it's rather future proof. By that I mean a relational model gives you the most flexibility in the future to evolve your system in ways you couldn't/didn't anticipate when the system was initially designed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting that people would pay amazon, but not mongodb...
I work in the enterprise and we spend tens of millions a year with AWS. Our Security, Cloud Engineering and Finance teams understand VPC, IAM, Costs etc back to front and so when you add a new AWS product they know how to manage, secure, finance and support it. And of course there is no Procurement process with adding a new AWS product. With a managed MongoDB (even though it's on AWS) you need to get buy in from doze…
There's a common saying we have in our consulting circles, that "Processes should support business, but business decisions shouldn't be made because of lack of processes".
We had a large local bank choose not to pursue a good opportunity because "our procurement process takes too long". This instead of investing in fixing the procurement process.
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. You are misinformed, at best. 1. FSF predates the term "open source", that much is true. 2. OSI coined the term "open source." And FSF has has always had issues with that. 3. OSI, on their front page, above the fold, advertises their mission as stewarding the definition of "open source". Again, FS…
> OSI coined the term "open source." The trademark office didn't think so. And ESR said they used the existing term from the intelligence community, which I guess is why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you are offering MongoDB as a service, article 13 requires you to release the source code of everything you're using to host your MongoDB instance under the terms of SSPL. 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.
That's not impossible. You can use solely SSPL software, or software with licenses compatible with SSPL.