Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MongoDB switches up its open source license

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#271

Post by amirathi »

the_af wrote: post #263
amirathi wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason What is that good reason? Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem?

> Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Exactly, it's not. > How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem? Whether it's bad is a value judgment I can't answer; it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source.

Do you not see any problem with that? Companies who are good at commercialisation gets all the dough for work created by small group of inventors. Is protecting inventors interest not important? Isn't this negatively affecting the ecosystem where there's less motivation for inventors to create open source software in the first place?

> it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source.

This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim).

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#272

Post by bunderbunder »

muks wrote: post #200
vmbrasseur wrote: post #120

Vice President of the Open Source Initiative here. MongoDB submitted this new license for approval by OSI at the same time that they announced that they'd relicensed all of their code. We wish they'd started the process prior to the announcement, but what's done is done. The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. As the license review process…

> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Perhaps you meant to say "is not OSI Certified", because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase "open source". See what's on your own website: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... On the other comments in this thread, even though MongoDB have "…

So, yes, technically, OSI does not own the term open source, and it could be that this license does comply with everything set out in the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd), and that means that, technically, "(the latest version of) MongoDB is not open source" is overstating the case.

Except that, as a non-lawyer developer who generally agrees with the Open Source Definition, "under an OSI-approved license" is my working definition of "open source". I believe the same is true for many others. And, under that definition, if Ms. Brasseur doesn't consider it to be open source (yet), I'm happy to fall in line with that.

She went on to say the magic words that mean so much more to me on this front than any debate about who gets to own the term: "It's probably best to limit your legal risk," and, "at this point." OSI's recommendations are a key part of how I limit my legal risk, and they're working on vetting it as we speak. My best course of action is to sit on my hands and wait for their advice.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#273

Post by sqrt17 »

BFatts wrote: post #171
sam0x17 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Microsoft issuing a warning that they have not yet verified that Linux is a "real" operating system, and to stay tuned for their final judgement. The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. 2. Al…

You are so off base. You may have been writing source-available software, but it's not open source unless you know the OSI's definition. THAT is what everybody abides by to make sure that the licenses are fair and in the spirit of open source software. Open source is an agreed upon definition for software provided under an OSI or FSF approved license. To state anything else shows that you DON'T understand what open s…

I can't tell whether this is serious or sarcastic. It lacks the "/s" at the end, so I'll assume that you're serious.

> but it's not open source unless you know the OSI's definition. > Open source is an agreed upon definition for software provided under an OSI or FSF approved license.

Open source software (by today's standards) existed before the OSI or even the term "Open Source" existed - the creators of BSD *nix, X11 and TeX all chose a liberal, open source license before a cabal around Eric S. Raymond would decide on a definition of Open Source and the term itself. The idea came after the actual thing existed, and the definition after the idea. So it would be weird to call something Open Source that doesn't fit the Open Source Definition (because the latter was conceived together with the term), but it would absolutely be possible for a software/license to be Open Source without knowing about the Open Source Definition, as is the case with BSD, X11, TeX and many Free Software programs.

Next, there is the idea of the Open Source Initiative approving Open Source licenses, which is a good thing because people can trust any OSI-approved license to be an Open Source license. However, not every Open Source license is OSI-approved, because OSI applies additional criteria (e.g. being reusable).

So, yes, it's possible for a license to be Open Source but not OSI approved, when it fits the Open Source Definition but hasn't been submitted, not reviewed, or doesn't meet the additional criteria set forth by the OSI.

The fact that your employer's legal department will mistrust your personal judgement of software fitting the Open Source Definition (for perfectly sensible reasons) doesn't make software not Open Source (any more than a US State can decide to make Pi a rational number or to make dolphins be fish).

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#274

Post by zzzcpan »

BFatts wrote: post #266
zzzcpan wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The OSI owns the definition No, OSI doesn't own the definition and doesn't get to define open source. Some people agree with that definition, some don't. Nobody has to though. You can't really own what other people think, you can only try to agree on some definition during interaction. No need to pretend there is some universal truth that they just don't know about. It's an agreement, not truth. And OSI might becom…

Yes, they do! They are the ones that put together the OSD ( https://opensource.org/osd ) which they derived from the DGSL. No one else has defined open source, not even Richard M. Stallman. His definition is for "Free Software", not "Open Source". So when it comes to who owns the definition, the definitive answer is the OSI. Anything else is just subjective opinions. You must not work. Because businesses that do REAL…

OSD is said subjective opinion, not a universally agreed upon definition.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#275

Post by AsyncAwait »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #261
AsyncAwait wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. The FSF concerns itself with defining/defending free software, same as OSI does for open-source. If FSF "concerns itself with much more", I assume you would not have a problem listing some of these things. > No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't…

Ask the FSF yourself. Richard Stallman can be reached via rms@gnu.org and usually responds to emails within a day. The FSF defends the right for others to sell your software, and has wide-reaching political ambitions. Don't just take my word for it, ask them.

> Ask the FSF yourself

YOU have asserted that the FSF has "wide-reaching political ambitions", therefore it is upon you to provide evidence for this.

> has wide-reaching political ambitions

I am asking what "political" ambitions does it have, beyond protecting free software.

> Don't just take my word for it

The thing is, you didn't provide any evidence of the "political ambitions" you speak of and so you're quite right, I don't take you word for it, unless you list at least some of these ambitions.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#276

Post by threeseed »

bunderbunder wrote: post #272
muks wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Perhaps you meant to say "is not OSI Certified", because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase "open source". See what's on your own website: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... On the other comments in this thread, even though MongoDB have "…

So, yes, technically, OSI does not own the term open source, and it could be that this license does comply with everything set out in the Open Source Definition ( https://opensource.org/osd ), and that means that, technically, "(the latest version of) MongoDB is not open source" is overstating the case. Except that, as a non-lawyer developer who generally agrees with the Open Source Definition, "under an OSI-approved…

Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code.

Not whether OSI gives it some arbitrary stamp of approval.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#277

Post by pas »

amyjess wrote: post #56
notacoward wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "all programs you use" clause seems to make it extremely viral, perhaps unprecedentedly so. It seems to me that anyone not willing to comply with AGPL would be even less likely to comply with this. Not sure how that's supposed to be a good outcome, even for Mongo.

This sounds like a violation of provision 9 of the Open Source Definition and the DFSG. It's going to backfire hard when distros start removing Mongo from their main repos.

Mongo already provides their own repos, and recommends using that for install and updates. I don't think they care or anyone seriously wanting to develop something on/around Mongo does either.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#278

Post by unethical_ban »

I'm embarrassed by the lack of comprehension people have for the idea of the OSI saying something isn't open source. The OSI has been around for a long time, has a consistent track record of helping organize FOSS licenses and create a framework/lexicon for this very purpose. They absolutely have the right to say if something is open source or not, according to their rules, just like anyone here gets to make their opinion heard on something. "Appeals to authority" make sense when the authority is credible, and shortcuts having to explain the four freedoms, etc.

---

To the article: It sounds like the SSPL will eventually be OSI-OSS, but I wonder if they couldn't have worked with GNU to create a new version of the AGPL. Granted, GNU might take exception to the idea of "oka you don't have to share the code, you just have to pay us" portion.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#279

Post by pas »

notacoward wrote: post #32
shadowmint wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare... “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 softwa…

The "all programs you use" clause seems to make it extremely viral, perhaps unprecedentedly so. It seems to me that anyone not willing to comply with AGPL would be even less likely to comply with this. Not sure how that's supposed to be a good outcome, even for Mongo.

Why is it viral? It doesn't require those other stuff to also be available under this license, just as source-available. Which means this is basically AGPL++.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#280

Post by bunderbunder »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #193
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source. The underlying reasons behind the Anti-Commons Clause are unimportant if the execution leads to such an egregious violation of these principles. I support the OSI and their mission is important. Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms while reaping its benefits…

>Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects, so this statement is quite ironic.

> OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects

This is one of those spots where knowledgeable people can disagree, because they're working with a different set of values.

To someone who prefers the Free Software model, OSI was created to subvert freedoms that the FSF wants to preserve. To someone who prefers the Open Source model, OSI preserves freedoms that the FSF is trying to restrict.

To the other 99% of humanity, this particular debate probably sounds a whole lot like the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea.

(Edit: s/intelligent/knowledgeable/ -- better choice of words.)

Post reply on HN