5 ms·

By definition, SSPL is not an open-source license [1]. One could argue that the SSPL brings justice to open-source, as cloud providers will not be able to mone

By definition, SSPL is not an open-source license [1]. One could argue that the SSPL brings justice to open-source, as cloud providers will not be able to monetize a project without giving anything back. SSPL forces them to pay a license fee. On the other hand, this also creates a vendor lock-in situation for the user, simply because not all service providers will be able to negotiate a deal with the developer of the SSPL-licensed product. This limits choice, limits competition between providers, among other things. This license fee may also be increased at the sole discretion of the developer, and the increased fee will be paid by the user in the end. This all doesn't sound open-source to me at all. [1]: https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license/ https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l...

that_guy_iain 3y ago
Personally, that blog post is just arrogance from OSI. I read it. It didn’t make clear which freedoms were being removed. They are still able to run cloud hosting just release their custom code? And OSI thinking they alone get to decide what is and what is not open source is arrogant.
- aleksi 3y ago
  > They are still able to run cloud hosting just release their custom code? The SSPL license reads: > […] you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. > “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 software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. You just can't comply with those terms if you don't have access to the source code of your storage software, for example. (but I'm not a lawyer, of course) > And OSI thinking they alone get to decide what is and what is not open source is arrogant. OSI invented the term “open source”: https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso... I think they are in a position to define what it means.
  - vrtx0 3y ago
    No, the term “open source” was in use before long before the OSI, and it was in popular/hacker culture in the 1980s. UNIVAC used it in for a major system in the 1950s. [1] I used it in 1993 (I wrote a small BBS). The OSI looks and sounds like an authority on open source software, but their entire strategy is legal, political and quasi-philosophical. I get how easy it is to be mislead by them though — they’re good at spinning things and rewriting history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sou...
    - PeterZaitsev 3y ago
      There are 3 "competing" Open Source and Free Software definitions - from OSI, Free Software Foundation and Debian. MongoDB does not match any of them and most importantly does not match the spirit of Open Source Software Movement.
      - that_guy_iain 3y ago
        Please state in what way they don’t? This is what I’m confused about. Apgl is open source but a sspl isn’t? They seem to be aimed at solving the same thing, which is cloud/server based code modifications.
        peterfarkas 3y ago
        SSPL goes way beyond AGPL as it contains an additional clause called "Offering the Program as a Service". It is not defined at all what constitutes providing MongoDB as a service. How many layers are needed to abstract MongoDB in a way that it doesn't trigger this clause? There are no answers for that in the SSPL. It comes with an enormous amount of risk compared to AGPL. There is a good article from Dor Laor at ScyllaDB which explains this in detail [1]. Moreover, cloud providers are not limited to AWS, Azure and GCP. Smaller providers whom we talked to are not able to negotiate licensing terms with MongoDB the same way as how AWS could. For this reason, these providers are not able to provide MongoDB as a service. Yes, it's great for MongoDB that they were stopped from providing MongoDB for free, but now they can't provide the service at all. This limits competition and choices, and that is never in the favor of users. [1]: https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodbs-new-license/ https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodb...
- peterfarkas 3y ago
  While I do respect your opinion, I disagree. I think that arrogance is when a single vendor tries to single-handedly redefine open-source to fit their business needs better. Not just a license, but the definition itself. A quote from the MongoDB CEO: "MongoDB was built by MongoDB. There was no prior art. We didn't open source it for help; we open sourced it as a freemium strategy". [1] Whether the OSI was arrogant or not, I really don't want this person to define opensource. [1]: https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-interview https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-inter...
  - that_guy_iain 3y ago
    I am not really sure what your issue is. What you think open-source as freemium isn’t a model? If it wasn’t for copy-left licenses that forced companies to release code that they used to create their products we wouldn’t have Linux in its current state. In a world, where many products are cloud based it seems fair and within the current model of open source to force code sharing.
vrtx0 3y ago
MongoDB’s source code is still freely available. It’s still actively developed in the open on GitHub. Unless you’re offering MongoDB as a service, it’s just as “open source” as ever. If you want to offer MongoDB as a service, you can still do so free of charge, as long as the service infrastructure is also made openly available, right? And if you don’t want to make the source available, you can purchase a license and do so, right? Furthermore, if you’re using MongoDB, be it self-hosted, with a vendor, or even some proprietary database that implements the wire protocol for compatibility, you’re likely using MongoDB-developed clients/drivers, which are Apache 2.0 (“OSI-approved open source”). So it seems like the only way to be locked into a vendor is if you’re using MongoDB drivers to connect with a 3rd party database that doesn’t fully implement all functionality of MongoDB in a compatible way… Right? I could be wrong, but as someone who contributed to MongoDB as an open source project, and was later hired by MongoDB based on said contributions, it kinda hurts to see the OSI’s “MongoDB isn’t open source anymore” campaign work so well. That said, I sincerely wish the team behind this project all the best! My complaints aren’t against anyone in the open source communities I’ve known and loved. Just this self-important legal organization that acts like it controls (and even gets to define) open source software. P.S. I left MongoDB in 2015 due to a neurological disability, but it was one of the highlights of my career, with so many kind and brilliant people. But it’s also been a while, and my brain doesn’t work so well these days, so please correct me if I got anything wrong!
- PeterZaitsev 3y ago
  "You can do so as soon as you open source infrastructure" is impractical and misleading. It is very likely part of infrastructure will be commercially licensed so even if one would want to open source it, it would not be possible. MongoDB Specifically switches from Open Source License to SSPL to create monopoly in DBaaS Space. IT is business decision so lets not pretend here. If you look at Real Open Source software it is created for cooperation and innovation together, not monopoly.
  - vrtx0 3y ago
    Er, if you develop the infrastructure to host MongoDB, you should absolutely be able to open-source that infrastructure. I mean, before MongoDB, I wrote a cluster management system for virtualized software security and hypervisor research, and all of it was either open source or something I wrote… Also, if you bought something closed-source to sell MongoDB as a service, why isn’t it realistic to buy a license? Your suggestion of a monopoly in the DBaaS space seems to preclude the existence of other databases… Or am I misunderstanding? I’m not sure what you mean by “IT is a business decision” — could you elaborate? -edit- P.S. I’m trying to be supportive here; not trying to take anything away from what you’ve built with FerretDB! Honestly, there’s room for so room for innovation in this domain, and it’s nice to see new projects…

that_guy_iain 3y ago

Personally, that blog post is just arrogance from OSI. I read it. It didn’t make clear which freedoms were being removed. They are still able to run cloud hosting just release their custom code? And OSI thinking they alone get to decide what is and what is not open source is arrogant.

aleksi 3y ago
> They are still able to run cloud hosting just release their custom code? The SSPL license reads: > […] you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. > “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 software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. You just can't comply with those terms if you don't have access to the source code of your storage software, for example. (but I'm not a lawyer, of course) > And OSI thinking they alone get to decide what is and what is not open source is arrogant. OSI invented the term “open source”: https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso... I think they are in a position to define what it means.
- vrtx0 3y ago
  No, the term “open source” was in use before long before the OSI, and it was in popular/hacker culture in the 1980s. UNIVAC used it in for a major system in the 1950s. [1] I used it in 1993 (I wrote a small BBS). The OSI looks and sounds like an authority on open source software, but their entire strategy is legal, political and quasi-philosophical. I get how easy it is to be mislead by them though — they’re good at spinning things and rewriting history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sou...
  - PeterZaitsev 3y ago
    There are 3 "competing" Open Source and Free Software definitions - from OSI, Free Software Foundation and Debian. MongoDB does not match any of them and most importantly does not match the spirit of Open Source Software Movement.
    - that_guy_iain 3y ago
      Please state in what way they don’t? This is what I’m confused about. Apgl is open source but a sspl isn’t? They seem to be aimed at solving the same thing, which is cloud/server based code modifications.
      - peterfarkas 3y ago
        SSPL goes way beyond AGPL as it contains an additional clause called "Offering the Program as a Service". It is not defined at all what constitutes providing MongoDB as a service. How many layers are needed to abstract MongoDB in a way that it doesn't trigger this clause? There are no answers for that in the SSPL. It comes with an enormous amount of risk compared to AGPL. There is a good article from Dor Laor at ScyllaDB which explains this in detail [1]. Moreover, cloud providers are not limited to AWS, Azure and GCP. Smaller providers whom we talked to are not able to negotiate licensing terms with MongoDB the same way as how AWS could. For this reason, these providers are not able to provide MongoDB as a service. Yes, it's great for MongoDB that they were stopped from providing MongoDB for free, but now they can't provide the service at all. This limits competition and choices, and that is never in the favor of users. [1]: https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodbs-new-license/ https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodb...
peterfarkas 3y ago
While I do respect your opinion, I disagree. I think that arrogance is when a single vendor tries to single-handedly redefine open-source to fit their business needs better. Not just a license, but the definition itself. A quote from the MongoDB CEO: "MongoDB was built by MongoDB. There was no prior art. We didn't open source it for help; we open sourced it as a freemium strategy". [1] Whether the OSI was arrogant or not, I really don't want this person to define opensource. [1]: https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-interview https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-inter...
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  I am not really sure what your issue is. What you think open-source as freemium isn’t a model? If it wasn’t for copy-left licenses that forced companies to release code that they used to create their products we wouldn’t have Linux in its current state. In a world, where many products are cloud based it seems fair and within the current model of open source to force code sharing.

vrtx0 3y ago

MongoDB’s source code is still freely available. It’s still actively developed in the open on GitHub. Unless you’re offering MongoDB as a service, it’s just as “open source” as ever. If you want to offer MongoDB as a service, you can still do so free of charge, as long as the service infrastructure is also made openly available, right? And if you don’t want to make the source available, you can purchase a license and do so, right? Furthermore, if you’re using MongoDB, be it self-hosted, with a vendor, or even some proprietary database that implements the wire protocol for compatibility, you’re likely using MongoDB-developed clients/drivers, which are Apache 2.0 (“OSI-approved open source”). So it seems like the only way to be locked into a vendor is if you’re using MongoDB drivers to connect with a 3rd party database that doesn’t fully implement all functionality of MongoDB in a compatible way… Right? I could be wrong, but as someone who contributed to MongoDB as an open source project, and was later hired by MongoDB based on said contributions, it kinda hurts to see the OSI’s “MongoDB isn’t open source anymore” campaign work so well. That said, I sincerely wish the team behind this project all the best! My complaints aren’t against anyone in the open source communities I’ve known and loved. Just this self-important legal organization that acts like it controls (and even gets to define) open source software. P.S. I left MongoDB in 2015 due to a neurological disability, but it was one of the highlights of my career, with so many kind and brilliant people. But it’s also been a while, and my brain doesn’t work so well these days, so please correct me if I got anything wrong!

PeterZaitsev 3y ago
"You can do so as soon as you open source infrastructure" is impractical and misleading. It is very likely part of infrastructure will be commercially licensed so even if one would want to open source it, it would not be possible. MongoDB Specifically switches from Open Source License to SSPL to create monopoly in DBaaS Space. IT is business decision so lets not pretend here. If you look at Real Open Source software it is created for cooperation and innovation together, not monopoly.
- vrtx0 3y ago
  Er, if you develop the infrastructure to host MongoDB, you should absolutely be able to open-source that infrastructure. I mean, before MongoDB, I wrote a cluster management system for virtualized software security and hypervisor research, and all of it was either open source or something I wrote… Also, if you bought something closed-source to sell MongoDB as a service, why isn’t it realistic to buy a license? Your suggestion of a monopoly in the DBaaS space seems to preclude the existence of other databases… Or am I misunderstanding? I’m not sure what you mean by “IT is a business decision” — could you elaborate? -edit- P.S. I’m trying to be supportive here; not trying to take anything away from what you’ve built with FerretDB! Honestly, there’s room for so room for innovation in this domain, and it’s nice to see new projects…