3 ms·

Is there an OSS license where it won’t allow other providers to offer the original technology as a service and charge for it? If I want to use MongoDB in my ec

Is there an OSS license where it won’t allow other providers to offer the original technology as a service and charge for it? If I want to use MongoDB in my ecommerce app no worries. If I want to simply use MongoDB offer some minimal improvement or added functionality, call it ZongoDB and sell subscriptions... not so fine?

mindcrime 8y ago
Is there an OSS license where it won’t allow other providers to offer the original technology as a service and charge for it? No, because such a license would - by definition - not be an Open Source license. That's basically what the Common Clause says, but a license with that clause attached isn't OSS.
saurik 8y ago
(With the caveat that I think what really matters here is "and hoard changes and updates", not "make money at all":) The AGPL comes to mind, but I bet that is slightly too viral? It is a hard problem: how do you legally differentiate a web app built on top of MongoDB from a thin wrapper for MongoDB that provides a minority different API from the backend (or might even simply be a load balancer)?
- metheus 8y ago
  "Software as a service" is a well understood concept, and on the strength of that understanding, the SSPL is clear. (Although as with all things there are edge cases, there aren't more edge cases with the SSPL than with other licenses.) If your web app uses MongoDB (or any SSPL licensed software) to provide a value that is not substantially MongoDB itself, you are not making the software available as a service. If your code facilitates making MongoDB's features available to other users, you are providing MongoDB as a service and are obligated to make all that code available under the SSPL.
perlgeek 8y ago
> Is there an OSS license where it won’t allow other providers to offer the original technology as a service and charge for it? No. Open Source always implies freedom to use for any purpose. There might strings attached such as the need to open-source modifications as well, but if usage itself isn't free, it's not Open Source.
mattl 8y ago
No. Restricting commercial usage or selling it is against the ethos of free and open source licenses. The Open Source Definition has a rule stating a license must not discriminate on fields of endeavor and the FSF has been pro-selling free software since its inception (it's how RMS made money in the early days of GNU and how the FSF funded itself for a long time)

mindcrime 8y ago

Is there an OSS license where it won’t allow other providers to offer the original technology as a service and charge for it? No, because such a license would - by definition - not be an Open Source license. That's basically what the Common Clause says, but a license with that clause attached isn't OSS.

saurik 8y ago

(With the caveat that I think what really matters here is "and hoard changes and updates", not "make money at all":) The AGPL comes to mind, but I bet that is slightly too viral? It is a hard problem: how do you legally differentiate a web app built on top of MongoDB from a thin wrapper for MongoDB that provides a minority different API from the backend (or might even simply be a load balancer)?

metheus 8y ago
"Software as a service" is a well understood concept, and on the strength of that understanding, the SSPL is clear. (Although as with all things there are edge cases, there aren't more edge cases with the SSPL than with other licenses.) If your web app uses MongoDB (or any SSPL licensed software) to provide a value that is not substantially MongoDB itself, you are not making the software available as a service. If your code facilitates making MongoDB's features available to other users, you are providing MongoDB as a service and are obligated to make all that code available under the SSPL.

perlgeek 8y ago

> Is there an OSS license where it won’t allow other providers to offer the original technology as a service and charge for it? No. Open Source always implies freedom to use for any purpose. There might strings attached such as the need to open-source modifications as well, but if usage itself isn't free, it's not Open Source.

mattl 8y ago

No. Restricting commercial usage or selling it is against the ethos of free and open source licenses. The Open Source Definition has a rule stating a license must not discriminate on fields of endeavor and the FSF has been pro-selling free software since its inception (it's how RMS made money in the early days of GNU and how the FSF funded itself for a long time)