ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    MongoDB Major Change to Licensing

    Developer Discussion
    mongodb open source licensing database nosql
    7
    78
    7.8k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • D
      DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
      last edited by

      @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

      @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

      Vendors like Amazon etc, who use FOSS to build their gigantic environments, are being forced to contribute back in ways beyond just the initial bits of code they use to create their platforms.

      I think that you are thinking of the AGPL. AGPL forces you to contribute back things you add to the software in question. That's what MongoDB is leaving, not what they are moving towards.

      Did you read the article?

          A company, let’s call it CatWalkingStartup, uses MongoDB OSS to store cat walking paths. It’s definitely not a MongoDB competitor and not a database service, thus a valid use of the license.
          MongoDB as a service usage
          2. A company, let’s call it BetterBiggerCloud, offers MongoDB as a service without contributing back a single line of code. This is not a valid use according to SSPL. In such a case, BetterBiggerCloud will either need to pay for an Enterprise license or open all of their code base (which is less likely to happen).```
      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
        last edited by

        @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

        @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

        @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

        Vendors like Amazon etc, who use FOSS to build their gigantic environments, are being forced to contribute back in ways beyond just the initial bits of code they use to create their platforms.

        I think that you are thinking of the AGPL. AGPL forces you to contribute back things you add to the software in question. That's what MongoDB is leaving, not what they are moving towards.

        Did you read the article?

            A company, let’s call it CatWalkingStartup, uses MongoDB OSS to store cat walking paths. It’s definitely not a MongoDB competitor and not a database service, thus a valid use of the license.
            MongoDB as a service usage
            2. A company, let’s call it BetterBiggerCloud, offers MongoDB as a service without contributing back a single line of code. This is not a valid use according to SSPL. In such a case, BetterBiggerCloud will either need to pay for an Enterprise license or open all of their code base (which is less likely to happen).```
        

        Yes, did you?

        D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • D
          DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller Yes, and it very clearly is stating that they are going towards a 1) Buy a enterprise license or 2) provide the complete source code for your service.

          AGPL says you should contribute back to the bits you are using. This SSPL is saying you need to contribute everything or purchase a license.

          S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S
            scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
            last edited by

            @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

            @scottalanmiller Yes, and it very clearly is stating that they are going towards a 1) Buy a enterprise license or 2) provide the complete source code for your service.

            Exactly. So if you use MongoDB in the normal way, you risk having to open source everything that gets data from it. That's insane and no one on the market has ever offered a database like that. This is completely unique in the open source world.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
              last edited by

              @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

              AGPL says you should contribute back to the bits you are using. This SSPL is saying you need to contribute everything or purchase a license.

              So you see the insanity and why this makes MongoDB no longer viable for pretty much anyone.

              D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • S
                scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                Redis tried something similar, and now the good way to use it is with GoodFORM.

                MongoDB is ripe for being forked and left in the dust of history.

                https://goodformcode.com/

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • T
                  tonyshowoff
                  last edited by

                  MongoDB's future

                  0_1542228287601_45668-1532336916.jpg

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S
                    scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/16/mongodb_licensning_change/

                    "MongoDB, which offers its database as a service, will not be playing by the same rules, however. "Because we own the IP, we are not obligated to open source our underlying management infrastructure," explained Ittycheria, who added that MongoDB has invested more than $300m developing its software."

                    Basically... customers of MongoDB have to go open source, but MongoDB doesn't have to. Which is fine and legal, but don't pretend this is about being open, this is about shutting down the ecosystem.

                    T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • D
                      DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                      @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                      @scottalanmiller Yes, and it very clearly is stating that they are going towards a 1) Buy a enterprise license or 2) provide the complete source code for your service.

                      Exactly. So if you use MongoDB in the normal way, you risk having to open source everything that gets data from it. That's insane and no one on the market has ever offered a database like that. This is completely unique in the open source world.

                      No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                      @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                      @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                      AGPL says you should contribute back to the bits you are using. This SSPL is saying you need to contribute everything or purchase a license.

                      So you see the insanity and why this makes MongoDB no longer viable for pretty much anyone.

                      I never said otherwise.

                      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • T
                        tonyshowoff @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                        https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/16/mongodb_licensning_change/

                        "MongoDB, which offers its database as a service, will not be playing by the same rules, however. "Because we own the IP, we are not obligated to open source our underlying management infrastructure," explained Ittycheria, who added that MongoDB has invested more than $300m developing its software."

                        Basically... customers of MongoDB have to go open source, but MongoDB doesn't have to. Which is fine and legal, but don't pretend this is about being open, this is about shutting down the ecosystem.

                        You have to be extra stupid to do something like this. Open source projects especially ones with APIs thrive on large ecosystems of all types. If suddenly you create a window for only a few dozen notable projects, and many barely at that, suddenly there's no reason for people to keep using it and thus providing API support in languages and so on.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • S
                          scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                          last edited by

                          @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                          No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                          You sure? "As a service" doesn't imply selling it to third parties. Software is delivered "as a service" internally, too. And it's not just selling, but using. This license is broad, very broad. So broad that I think you might be completely missing how it risks tainting literally everything.

                          D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • D
                            DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
                            last edited by DustinB3403

                            @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                            @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                            No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                            You sure? "As a service" doesn't imply selling it to third parties. Software is delivered "as a service" internally, too. And it's not just selling, but using. This license is broad, very broad. So broad that I think you might be completely missing how it risks tainting literally everything.

                            This change specifically targets MongoDB as a service that a (not mongoDB company) is selling a service and profiting from.

                            T S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • T
                              tonyshowoff @DustinB3403
                              last edited by tonyshowoff

                              @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                              @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                              @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                              No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                              You sure? "As a service" doesn't imply selling it to third parties. Software is delivered "as a service" internally, too. And it's not just selling, but using. This license is broad, very broad. So broad that I think you might be completely missing how it risks tainting literally everything.

                              This change specifically targets MongoDB as a service that a (not mongoDB company) is selling a service and profiting from.

                              Intent isn't the same thing as result, especially if you scare people away with vague language... like GPL 3 and Linux

                              D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • S
                                scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                The basic tenants of open source licensing has always been that you be allowed to operate the product. But the MongoDB license restricts, heavily, the ability to use the software.

                                This is what is unique. Before, all licenses that addressed this talked about contributing back from products that use the code not the binaries. This is a binary use restriction that is unique and a show stopper.

                                It also means that, for example, if you wanted to host some software for your users, and you connected it to MongoDB, that you are forced to release that code - even if you didn't write it or have rights to it! See the difficulty here?

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • S
                                  scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                                  last edited by

                                  @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                  @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                  @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                  No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                                  You sure? "As a service" doesn't imply selling it to third parties. Software is delivered "as a service" internally, too. And it's not just selling, but using. This license is broad, very broad. So broad that I think you might be completely missing how it risks tainting literally everything.

                                  This change specifically targets MongoDB as a service that a (not mongoDB company) is selling a service and profiting from.

                                  No, that's not what it targets, hence the entire concern.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • D
                                    DustinB3403 @tonyshowoff
                                    last edited by

                                    @tonyshowoff said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                    @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                    @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                    @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                    No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                                    You sure? "As a service" doesn't imply selling it to third parties. Software is delivered "as a service" internally, too. And it's not just selling, but using. This license is broad, very broad. So broad that I think you might be completely missing how it risks tainting literally everything.

                                    This change specifically targets MongoDB as a service that a (not mongoDB company) is selling a service and profiting from.

                                    Intent isn't the same thing as result, especially if you scare people away with vague language

                                    Sure, I agree wholeheartedly. But the conversation and license change is specifically businesses who are using MongoDB as a backend to whatever service they are selling to a customer.

                                    It's targeting profitiers, not internal uses.

                                    T JaredBuschJ S 4 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • S
                                      scottalanmiller
                                      last edited by

                                      Look at it like this, imagine if Linux changed its license and said that in order to install software on Linux, you had to provide the source code back to Linux.

                                      That means that end users, who don't make the code, would have no reasonable means and often no possibly means of running software. Because the license requires the end users to do things, not just developers working with the original code. While legal, it's effectively impossible to then use the product.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • T
                                        tonyshowoff @DustinB3403
                                        last edited by

                                        @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                        @tonyshowoff said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                        @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                        @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                        @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                        No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                                        You sure? "As a service" doesn't imply selling it to third parties. Software is delivered "as a service" internally, too. And it's not just selling, but using. This license is broad, very broad. So broad that I think you might be completely missing how it risks tainting literally everything.

                                        This change specifically targets MongoDB as a service that a (not mongoDB company) is selling a service and profiting from.

                                        Intent isn't the same thing as result, especially if you scare people away with vague language

                                        Sure, I agree wholeheartedly. But the conversation and license change is specifically businesses who are using MongoDB as a backend to whatever service they are selling to a customer.

                                        It's targeting profitiers, not internal uses.

                                        Let's say that's accurate, fine, but we're already moving to another key-value store in our product because of this (among other reasons but this is a good reason to never look back) and also the potential for it to get worse. What if they decided to further lock that down based on some other reason or decided to suddenly start trying to license to closed source products/services that simply use it so they can make money from that?

                                        D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • JaredBuschJ
                                          JaredBusch @DustinB3403
                                          last edited by

                                          @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                          @tonyshowoff said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                          @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                          @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                          @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                          No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                                          You sure? "As a service" doesn't imply selling it to third parties. Software is delivered "as a service" internally, too. And it's not just selling, but using. This license is broad, very broad. So broad that I think you might be completely missing how it risks tainting literally everything.

                                          This change specifically targets MongoDB as a service that a (not mongoDB company) is selling a service and profiting from.

                                          Intent isn't the same thing as result, especially if you scare people away with vague language

                                          Sure, I agree wholeheartedly. But the conversation and license change is specifically businesses who are using MongoDB as a backend to whatever service they are selling to a customer.

                                          It's targeting profitiers, not internal uses.

                                          No actually, it is not and that is the prblem. They might have WANTED to do that. but they did not.

                                          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • S
                                            scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                                            last edited by

                                            @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                            @tonyshowoff said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                            @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                            @scottalanmiller said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                            @DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:

                                            No. . . only if I was selling a service that used MongoDB as the backend would I be forced to purchase a license or Open Source everything. If I ran a mongoDB internally and not sold it as a service I wouldn't have to contribute or open a single line of code for whatever I built internally that uses MongoDB.

                                            You sure? "As a service" doesn't imply selling it to third parties. Software is delivered "as a service" internally, too. And it's not just selling, but using. This license is broad, very broad. So broad that I think you might be completely missing how it risks tainting literally everything.

                                            This change specifically targets MongoDB as a service that a (not mongoDB company) is selling a service and profiting from.

                                            Intent isn't the same thing as result, especially if you scare people away with vague language

                                            Sure, I agree wholeheartedly. But the conversation and license change is specifically businesses who are using MongoDB as a backend to whatever service they are selling to a customer.

                                            It's targeting profitiers, not internal uses.

                                            You just completely changed how you thought it was targeted. First it was MongoDB as a service. Not it's "all software" as a service. that's a whopping change.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 1 / 4
                                            • First post
                                              Last post