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

311–320 of 487 posts

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#311

Post by tlrobinson »

jkrems wrote: post #290
threeseed wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but that's a really dangerous position to take and if they'd work with me I'd be quick to set them straight. Because that path leads to legal adventure. What you are describing is "source available", not "open source". And that's a huge difference in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

I'd add "redistribute" to the GP's definition, but the point stands that the definition of "open source" is not "licensed using an OSI approved license"

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#312

Post by pritambaral »

y04nn wrote: post #225
nebulous1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is missing the specifics of what Mongo are saying that others are doing that they won't be able to do under this new licence.

AGPL: 'if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there.' Some companies are illegally running a modified version of MongoDB while keeping their changes closed source. As I understand, the new licence will allow them to do that if they pay a commercial licence (contr…

AGPL does not require the copyright-holder to license the work exclusively under the AGPL, only those that received the work under the AGPL. People and companies are free to receive from copyright-holders their works under different — even commercial — licenses, irrespective of which (and how many) (non-exclusive) licenses the copyright-holders have used in the past for the same works.

In the matter of allowing commercial licensing by the copyright-holder, the AGPL and this new license do not differ.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#313

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

putlake wrote: post #307
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do understand your viewpoints. I just disagree that they're significant enough in practice to outweigh the value I see in WTFPL. The lack of a warranty disclaimer isn't an issue in practice; my readme just says "WTFPL, no warranty". The vague rights grant isn't something I've seen as an issue in analogous situations in case law. More important, to me, is what WTFPL says about my code: I'm not precious about it, I g…

Why not just release it into the public domain then?

Many countries don't have the US concept of public domain, including the one where I live ("in the public domain" actually means something quite different in British English). But the WTFPL also makes a statement and one of which I approve.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#314

Post by exabrial »

You assume this "Intellectual Property" or "Copyright" thing exists in China. After working for a Chinese company, the concepts don't have an analog in their culture. Actually the concept of licensure in general doesn't have a good analog. They see open source as free and sort of brush off the strings that are attached.

(this btw, should not be interpreted as bad mouthing them; I'm merely pointing out a communication problem between two cultures).

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#315

Post by Intermernet »

threeseed wrote: post #276
bunderbunder wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Do you mean legally? If not, Windows 2000 is open source. If so, then that's what the OSI tries to ensure.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#316

Post by plopz »

the_af wrote: post #251
hartator wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The source is provided, yes, but that doesn't make it open source. For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. After you can have more or less restrictive licenses.

> For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. But that's not actually the most commonly accepted definition of open source. It means something else, as widely understood by the software community.

My definition is the same as his. Is there a poll or survey somewhere that determined what the commonly accepted definition was?

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#317

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#318

Post by bunderbunder »

sam0x17 wrote: post #154
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…

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…

> All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form

I think that, in practice, there are very few people who have been around the block a few times, and still see things that way.

As a concrete example, consider the Microsoft Shared Source Initiative. That particular (arguable) boodoggle is the closest I can think of to a real test of whether there's a broad consensus on what "open source" really means. My impression is that most everyone who's looked into it agrees that a couple of the SSI family of licenses are "open source", and the rest are not, and that they generally agree on exactly which ones are and are not.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#319

Post by kodablah »

mrkurt wrote: post #303
kodablah wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> comfy taking OSS work, doing a ton of proprietary development on it, and leaving the companies who did all the groundwork flailing in the wind Well, that's one way to put it I guess. I personally am OK with anyone taking my work and doing a ton of proprietary development on it. I wouldn't put it out there that way if I wasn't (and don't w/ my proprietary stuff). We need to stop demonizing restrictionless developmen…

> We need to stop demonizing restrictionless development. I'm not! I love permissive OSS licenses, I think they're great until they get abused. What I'm demonizing is overly powerful megacorps owning an unreasonable amount of the available "tech" revenue. This license from MongoDB is an unfortunate side effect of that. I don't think anyone there wanted a weirdly restrictive license, but I do think they want to build…

> I think they're great until they get abused.

I think they're great even when they get "abused" (for that definition of "abuse" which I don't agree with).

> What I'm demonizing is overly powerful megacorps owning an unreasonable amount of the available "tech" revenue.

Whether or not that is a problem is a different discussion, but suffice to say the license change will not solve or change that. It is naive to think so.

> it's downright dangerous to license things permissively and try to build a business at the same time

Well, if you attempt to build a business on the permissively licensed thing, of course. I'm not sure I concede that building a business on permissively licensed thing, thereby changing its license, is required. Building a business around it? Developing it with funds acquired on other business? Remaining small and not growing it beyond its original development? All of these are sustainable development models too. Before being so quick to blame these "megacorps" like they did something wrong, consider whether the changes to correct this "wrong" even accomplish the goal and whether that goal has any value of being accomplished. The intent of the license change has less value than its practical effect, and the idealistic way we'd like open source to sustain itself and be profitable is not always the pragmatic one. Calling them "megacorps", saying they are the problem, saying you have no choice but to change your license, etc all of this is what I mean about the ill-perceived righteousness of license restrictions.

Re: MongoDB switches up its open source license

#320

Post by tannhaeuser »

BFatts wrote: post #178
JaimeThompson wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. You categorically stated it wasn't opensource. Had you stated that in your opinion it wasn't opensource it would be different.

You sound like you're arguing just to argue. Do you have a valid point? Their OSD is what defines open source. You didn't define it. It wasn't defined at some party or demo-conf. It was defined by the OSI - they defined Open Source Software. Arguing otherwise shows a serious lack of OSS knowledge.

You may be talking past another. I guess what GP was asking is whether OSI has a trademark, copyright, or something else for the term "open source"? The term "open source" has been generically used for much longer than OSI's existence.
Post reply on HN