MongoDB's Server Side Public License Is Likely Unenforceable

Post by luddy » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 8:04 PM UTC

Post by acct1771 » Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 8:15 AM UTC

bayareasguy wrote: post #210

mindcrime wrote: post #16

Yeah, I'm not necessarily opposed to the general spirit of what they're trying to do here, but this license just doesn't make sense in practice. Now that I've had more time to look at it, I'd really recommend that everybody stay the f%!# away from MongoDB. This bit in particular really hits the nail on the head: Let's assume that it is ok somehow to pass forward other open source software, solving that problem. What…

There are many arguments provided as justification for this new license - they seem specious in my opinion 1. Big cloud vendors are making money off MongoDB's investment Completely untrue. The big three - AWS, Azure and GCP dont have a MongoDB as a service solution. The only commercial entity making any real money off MongoDB is MongoDB, Inc. AGPL has achieved its purpose here. The only big cloud vendor with a soluti…

Post by Bartweiss » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

VanL wrote: post #57

Bartweiss wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the article had taken this question more seriously. Impracticability is a defense under contract, but a fundamental requirement in the US test is: > "an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract" Impracticability is not a defense against signing stupid or damaging contracts; it specifically releases a party when circumstances change such that a contract is no…

Here is the analysis: Let's think about the context where this would come up: A party ("Service") takes the SSPL'd MongoDB and implements a service. Service releases some code based on a good faith interpretation of the scope of the release necessary. There is a dispute between MongoDB and Service as to the scope of the necessary code release. In the ensuing lawsuit, Service raises misuse and argues that the scope is…