31–40 of 245 posts
I never understood all the hate mongo gets. Like any tool, if people simply took the time to understand it and use it correctly, maybe they wouldn't run into issues.
It's better now, but very few things worry technical people more than a database that loses data. It's hard to get past that early impression.
Use Postgres, problem solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite—if you offer MongoDB itself as a service, then yes. If you just use it on the backend, no. (Read the license and consult your lawyer for details, of course.)
"offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program" That sounds pretty squishy and likely to be broader than just the use case of offering Mongo as a service.
Use Postgres, problem solved.
While I like relational data and I _love_ Postgres specifically, there are some tasks and contexts for which non-relational stores are better suited.
This isn't me trying to argue against the article; I'm trying to understand the law as it applies to my profession.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program" That sounds pretty squishy and likely to be broader than just the use case of offering Mongo as a service.
It doesn't seem squishy to me insofar as you can't offer Mongo as a service and then swap Mongo out for a different product, while leaving your offering unchanged. Any app using Mongo simply as a datastore on the backend can swap it out without altering their offering.
Is there an example of such a license?
Could this type of license even be created in an enforceable way?
Doesn't Unifi use this?
I never understood all the hate mongo gets. Like any tool, if people simply took the time to understand it and use it correctly, maybe they wouldn't run into issues.
MongoDB made some very sketchy, undocumented (or poorly documented) technical decisions in its early years that placed data at great risk. It's better now, but very few things worry technical people more than a database that loses data. It's hard to get past that early impression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then what? The owner of the code is entitled to license the software as they want it [1]. If you dislike the license, then use a different program or fork the last version before the license change. I can fully understand the frustration of pro-copyleft developers and companies that want to use copyleft for a 'share or pay model'. Cloud computing makes existing licenses toothless by moving the software from the c…
Of course they’re entitled, but I’m also entitled to say I think this move was either idiotic or malevolent. I’m unsympathetic to the “oh no the cloud” mindset. I’ve worked at companies that have made on-premise patches to FOSS since the 90s. Can you imagine if Linux required you to make the source available of all software you ran on it? Or MySQL? Or Perl/PHP? I can vaguely see the point of the AGPL for things like…
It's perfectly understandable if you decide not to use their software because you find their license unacceptable but don't insult them for doing what they want with their own project. If a sizeable enough number of contributors are unhappy with the move they're still free to fork and continue the previous version of Mongo DB with the old license.