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.
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
MongoDB's future
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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
-
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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@DustinB3403 said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:
It's targeting profitiers, not internal uses.
Those are one and the same. No one runs software internally if not for profit from doing so. You can't find a way to differentiate these two.
-
@JaredBusch said in MongoDB Major Change to Licensing:
@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.
Right, what their intent was is not clear, but they claim that that was their intent. But what they did isn't that, and is so far from that, that it doesn't seem plausible to believe it was their intention.
