14 ms·

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 reli

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 only started this morning, there's no way to estimate how long the process will take. There also is no guarantee that the license will be found to obey the Open Source Definition, and therefore no guarantee that it will be approved. Hopefully this will all be resolved soon, but there are far too many question marks around this license (and therefore also around any software using it) right now. It's probably best to limit your legal risk by not upgrading to an SSPL-licensed MongoDB at this point. The previous AGPL-licensed version should always be available.

vasco 8y ago
You don't own the term open source mate.
- FooBarWidget 8y ago
  Your opinion isn't the only one out there. I recognize the OSI as the authority on the term open source. On a more practical level: who do you consider be the authority? If the answer is 'nobody' (except yourself) then that makes the term essentially meaningless because there is no standardization, which means that one should stop using that term.
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    MongoDB recognizes OSI as an authority as well, which is why they submitted their license to OSI for approval. Which led us to this moment, where OSI has not (/yet) granted that approval, and that apparently raised gp's hackles for some reason.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      MongoDB recognizes that OSI approval is a nice thing to have as a selling point. I very much doubt that they accept the OSI as an authority that can make binding rules and regulations about who gets to call their software "open source".
  - vasco 8y ago
    So by me saying that the term might be interpreted differently by different people - since it can't be owned by anyone now that it's in wide use (and hence implying there's different opinions out there) you assume that I fail to see there's a multitude of different opinions on the matter? That's exactly the point I was making.
    - sangnoir 8y ago
      Only if you're completely ignoring the context, which is MongoDB asked OSI to approve their license as "Open Source" - OSI isn't in a position to do so immediately, and so in OSI's estimation, MongoDB isn't "Open Source"
      - jfk13 8y ago
        As OSI hasn't yet reviewed the license, perhaps it would have been better for the OSI VP to explain that "MongoDB may not meet the OSI definition of Open Source" than to announce (in CAPITALS, no less) that "MongoDB...IS NOT OPEN SOURCE".
        sangnoir 8y ago
        > "MongoDB may not meet the OSI definition of Open Source" That's just euphemism for "MongoDB is not (certified) Open source". It either is, or isn't; and presently it isn't, for reasons that were entirely under MongoDB's control.
        BFatts 8y ago
        If it doesn't fit the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) it IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. The license has not been reviewed by the OSI, and there isn't any "Approved until shown otherwise" clause to refer to. So, in the OSI's eyes (and really anyone who knows what open source actually is) it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore.
        jfk13 8y ago
        > If it doesn't fit the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) it IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Well, that presupposes that the OSD is the One True Definition of the term "Open Source"; although the OSD is widely accepted and respected, that's a rather bold claim over an English phrase. > it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore That claim doesn't seem justified at this point. It would be more accurate to say that it is not currently CERTIFIED BY THE OSI as being Open Source -- because the OSI has not yet reviewed the new license. Maybe it will turn out that it is Open Source (as per the OSD), maybe not. Until the license is properly reviewed, we simply don't know.
  - tyingq 8y ago
    OSI seems to recognize they don't own the term. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
  - jpambrun 8y ago
    The authority on word definitions is a dictionary, so that we don't have to argue like that. This definition seems suitable: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
    - themoonbus 8y ago
      Dictionaries reflect common usage and shared understanding, they're not some infallible source. If the technology community started using the term "open source" in a different way, the dictionary would have to be updated to reflect the new meaning.
    - parent5446 8y ago
      Strange, my dictionary has a different definition: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/open-source https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/open-source
    - BFatts 8y ago
      The definitions in a dictionary are for general purposes and not used, necessarily, in legal battles. There are legal definitions for things like Intellectual Property, Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks. These definitions are what will be used when it comes to determining, legally, what open source is - not some wordsmith.
    - pdkl95 8y ago
      Noah Webster did use a strongly prescriptive approach when he wrote his dictionary. His decision to use alternate or simplified spellings of some words is still seen today as the differences between American English and British English. Linguistic prescription - the idea that there is a single "correct" language and other uses of language are somehow inferior or improper - was used to intentionally to give American English it's own identity. Fortunately, most modern dictionaries recognize that languages evolve, using a descriptive approach, updating definitions when needed to reflect how words are actually used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._descriptive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._de...
  - module0000 8y ago
    >> who do you consider be the authority? That would be Richard Matthew Stallman, the proverbial OG in this entire field.
    - nailer 8y ago
      ESR and O Reilly are the OGs for OSS, though they certainly owe a debt to RMS
      - gonzo 8y ago
        Neither invented the term, they just marketed it, because it directly benefitted them. Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute is the "OG" for the term "open source" as applied to software.
    - sangnoir 8y ago
      You will find that RMS detests "Open Source"[1]. He's more of a Free software guy, the distinction on user's freedom is important. 1.https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        I think OP meant in the spiritual sense, free software is the original "open-source". A better one, I'd argue, but that's a different discussion.
        sangnoir 8y ago
        I was addressing OP's suggestion that RMS is the authority on "Open Source" (which was the question further up the thread). He'd rather have you use/contribute (to) Free software instead.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        Yes, I understood that, I assume the OP meant that he is an authority on "open-source" in that "free software" was the original "open-source" and thus "open-source" has RMS a lot to thank for. Otherwise I agree.
  - gwbas1c 8y ago
    Strongly disagree. "Open Source" is not a trademark, no one entity can claim ownership over what defines open source.
- jesseb 8y ago
  They're referring specifically to The Open Source Definition[1] outlined by the Open Source Initiative. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
- BFatts 8y ago
  The OSI owns the definition, yes. You are incorrect. See https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd which is what DEFINES open source. The term has been around for 20 years. Your lack of understanding the history doesn't make you any kind of an expert.
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    > The OSI owns the definition No, OSI doesn't own the definition and doesn't get to define open source. Some people agree with that definition, some don't. Nobody has to though. You can't really own what other people think, you can only try to agree on some definition during interaction. No need to pretend there is some universal truth that they just don't know about. It's an agreement, not truth. And OSI might become irrelevant anyway if it doesn't change in light of recently emerged licenses with more restrictions and doesn't certify them in some way. People will just stick to a handful of popular known licenses and call them open source.
    - BFatts 8y ago
      Yes, they do! They are the ones that put together the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) which they derived from the DGSL. No one else has defined open source, not even Richard M. Stallman. His definition is for "Free Software", not "Open Source". So when it comes to who owns the definition, the definitive answer is the OSI. Anything else is just subjective opinions. You must not work. Because businesses that do REAL BUSINESS and use Open Source are happy that there is the OSD and approved OSI licenses. That way, we can make real, LEGAL decisions. For individual developers, they might have a different idea of what the definition is, but the actual reference to what defines it is at: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Reading that will clarify what open source is and isn't. Anything else is just "free software" and should hunt down the FSF for licenses and such. RMS has a very different opinion on software that DOES NOT WORK for large corporations.
      - zzzcpan 8y ago
        OSD is said subjective opinion, not a universally agreed upon definition.
- mithr 8y ago
  In a funny way, I actually don't think ownership of the term, or even who gets to decide that, is what really matters. Mongo can release their software under a license they term "open source", or "special mongo license", or "license X" -- they're under no obligation to use any commonly-accepted licenses or terms. They are certainly free to call themselves "open source" under any new license, and make their arguments as to why they believe that term applies. However, what really matters here is whether, if they choose to do that, developers would still be willing to freely contribute to Mongo's code base, and whether companies who use open source software will continue to use their product. Because _that's_ the reason Mongo cares about being "open source". If most developers and organizations recognize the OSI, with their license approval process, as the arbiters of what constitutes an open source license, then that's the reason the OSI's opinion here really counts. Not because they have some divine right to that term, but simply because if they say "after review, we don't consider this project to be open source by our definition of open source", developers and organizations may hesitate to contribute to, or use, this project.
JaimeThompson 8y ago
I wasn't aware that the OSI was the only one who could declare something to be "OPEN SOURCE". Is there a certification fee to have my license / code blessed with the designation?
- vmbrasseur 8y ago
  There's no fee, and no need to submit any code. The entire approval process is documented on our website: https://opensource.org/approval https://opensource.org/approval
  - JaimeThompson 8y ago
    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.
    - vmbrasseur 8y ago
      Please see this comment for more information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270
    - enraged_camel 8y ago
      >>I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. Sorry, who said anything about a "legal" right? Maybe you're reading too much into the OP's comment. Mongo submitted an application at OSI, and OSI is saying that currently, they don't consider Mongo open-source, based on their own definition. Perhaps you're just confused?
    - BFatts 8y ago
      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.
mpdehaan2 8y ago
This seems like FUD to me. While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea of free software. Rather, the term open source was a reaction to the desire for commerical enterprises to avoid saying software was free. Now it rejects the same argument from developers of software to make a profit, which I find ironic relative to the founding mission. Previously, Commons Clause was called out in aggressive terms in twitter, rather than seeking to understand the underlying rationale. Some of my thoughts: https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-licenses-d2d9d819a10 https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-... I am left to believe OSI views this as a useful political time to self-market, or otherwise sees licenses like this - which intend to fairly compensate software developers - as something that does not promote the interests of those that primarily fund it. I'm sorry, but we don't need a gatekeeper anymore.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source. The underlying reasons behind the Anti-Commons Clause are unimportant if the execution leads to such an egregious violation of these principles. I support the OSI and their mission is important. Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms while reaping its benefits is ridiculous. I'm not saying that MongoDB is in the wrong here. The new license is perhaps misguided in that it seems functionally equivalent to the AGPL, but after I read it I think it meets the OSD. However, MongoDB should have spoken to the OSI before switching their license to be sure.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    >Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects, so this statement is quite ironic.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sam0x17 8y ago
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. All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form, with no implication whatsoever made about the license of said code. "Free and open source" on the other hand implies a permissive license. 3. I don't know anything about the MongoDB license before or after these changes, I just despise the tone of this message. So to recap. OSI is just some random organization with no bearing on what society decides open source is or isn't, and therefore what they say DOES NOT MATTER.
- dx87 8y ago
  MongDB submitted their license for approval, so obviously it matters to them. Whether you think it matters or not is irrelevant, you're just some random HN user with no bearing on what society decides open source is or isn't.
- joshsimmons 8y ago
  Open source is a term of art with an agreed upon definition, and it has been for 20 years which, not-so-coincidentally, is also when the Open Source Initiative was founded. The fact that you've never heard of OSI means we've been doing our job well enough that you've never needed to know about it. The fact that you've never heard of OSI does NOT mean that it's not legitimate, and frankly, that kind of rhetoric is just silly.
  - PuffinBlue 8y ago
    If this is held true and everyone agrees it, all this conversation/wider thread has served to show is that the term has reached 'genericization'. The OSI can claim/define what is wishes to but in practice it has lost authorship of the 'open source' definition. Just like Google/Xerox/Kleenex/Taser/Bubble Wrap/Dumpster/Escalator/thermos/Chapstick/Frisbee/Photoshop et al.
rmc 8y ago
> MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. It might still be open source. It's accurate to say it's not under an OSI approved open source licence, but that's not exactly the same thing.
- BFatts 8y ago
  The OSI is the founder and DEFINER of the term "open source" so saying that it's open source without an OSI approved license is like saying your app's an approved Android app without it first being reviewed. Get it?? Open Source is a term coined by the OSI.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Open Source is a term coined by the OSI. No, it's not: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html And even if it was, popular terms reach beyond the persons/organizations that coined them. Unless it's trademarked, it's just a term all kinds of people use, many of which don't know/care about OSI. In fact: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
    - BFatts 8y ago
      Okay, pedantry... If you want to be specific: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... But it was done coincidentally with the discussions that ultimately led to the OSI and the OSD. >> Bruce Perens has applied to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. The trademark conditions will be known as the ``Open Source Definition'', essentially the same as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Your own reference contains this text, btw.
      - gonzo 8y ago
        Bruce attempted to register a certification mark (a type of trademark), but the application lapsed in 1999 after OSI discovered that there was virtually zero chance of registering the term "open source" as a mark, as the term is too descriptive.
module0000 8y ago
>> MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE Hey, that's not true - neither yourself nor OSI or anyone else gets to decide that. If the nice folks at MongoDB continue to release their source code, then it's open source. End of story.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If the nice folks at MongoDB continue to release their source code, then it's open source. No, it's source available / shared source. “Open” doesn't mean merely visible in the phrase “open source”.
- ken 8y ago
  Pre-GNU/BSD/Linux Unix included source code, too, but I don't think anyone would claim it was "open source" in any sense of the word.
jahewson 8y ago
I don't think that an appeal to authority is a very good way to make this argument. It's the blatant restriction to the field of endeavor which makes this license quite obviously not open source, because there's nothing open about something which certain people are not allowed to use.
- BFatts 8y ago
  But the OSD is maintained by the OSI, so an appeal to "authority" is a great way to make this argument. The OSI gets to decide what fits their OSD (which you quote) so it's really a non-issue.
- metheus 8y ago
  Who's not allowed to use it?
muks 8y ago
> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Perhaps you meant to say "is not OSI Certified", because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase "open source". See what's on your own website: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... On the other comments in this thread, even though MongoDB have "submitted" to having the OSI review their license, OSI still aren't capable of restricting anyone's rights on the use of the phrase "open source" including MongoDB's. I can see your organization tries to make sure that there is an approved set of principles that identify libre/free software which is good. The phrase "open source" has been used in myriad ways since its early days, and not just for software. I'm a programmer who has written open source since 2000. I would defend you when it comes to the benefits of libre software, but you can't restrict others over using something that you don't legally own.
- hueving 8y ago
  Not sure anyone actually thinks "open source" is a term owned by an organization and the gp didn't say they were restricting Mongo, so I'm not sure if your clarification is necessary. It's like someone claiming certain software doesn't scale. There is no need to clarify that the author doesn't own the word "scalability". Op is speaking for the OSI's opinion on whether it's open source or not.
  - Waterluvian 8y ago
    Then Op should not say in all caps, "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - mcny 8y ago
      I understood it as meaning "my organization cannot yet certify it as open source" with yet being the operative word.
mintplant 8y ago
While you're reviewing the license, I'd be interested in the OSI's opinion as to whether or not the SSPL retains compatibility with GPL software in light of the striking of the relevant paragraph in section 13—and what the implications would be of adding it back in.
codegeek 8y ago
Honest question. If I write some code and release it on Github with an MIT license, do I need permission from OSI to call my project "Open Source"? Is there a legal requirement? I am confused.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Honest question. If I write some code and release it on Github with an MIT license, do I need permission from OSI to call my project "Open Source"? MIT is an approved license, so yes. > is a legal requirement? No.
- joshsimmons 8y ago
  Fair question :-) And the answer is no, you would not need OSI's permission to call your project open source -- because you'd be using the MIT license which has been reviewed and approved by the OSI. You can find the list of approved licenses, along with information about the review and approval process, over at https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses
  - singlow 8y ago
    You can call your software open source no matter what license you use. People may harrass you, but there is no legal restriction on the use of the term and OSI cannot sue you.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  You don't need anyone's permission to call anything "open source". There's certainly no legal requirement. Note, however, if this language starts making its way into contracts, and you're calling something "open source" that isn't actually open source by any standard meanings of the term, then you could be in trouble. But releasing something under a common open source license is prima facie open source, so no problems there.
kazinator 8y ago
> non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. You don't own the term "open source", and nobody requires your approval for its usage. "May not carry the OSI trademark or logo" is not the same thing as "is not open source".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kolderman 8y ago
> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE You sound like a fucking tyrant.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again. The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cyphar 8y ago
> There also is no guarantee that the license will be found to obey the Open Source Definition, and therefore no guarantee that it will be approved. This shouldn't be surprising -- it blatantly violates the spirit of section 9 (if not the actual wording). I would be quite shocked if the OSI decides the new license is "open source". > 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software. The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. I wonder what RMS / the FSF have to say about it...
MrStonedOne 8y ago
> therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Please edit your comment to be more accurate. If you later approve the license, then under your company's own definition of "open source" that means it was always open source, even now, so saying they are not open source when you admit you have not reviewed the license fully yet, is inaccurate, and could very well lead your company into legal liability if your statement turns out to be untrue and mongodb sues for slander. furthermore: If you later deny the license, that may mean it was always not open source. May. Your board is not the gatekeeper to the open source community, you are not the controller, authority, or president of the open source community, and the open source community as a whole is the only body that can decide what is "Open Source"
theclaw 8y ago
I certainly learned some things today. I didn’t realise ‘open source’ had such a specific meaning, and I understand why it’s useful to establish the definition so there is no ambiguity. Reading the replies to this thread is like watching hippies fight over the definition of free love. Open source doesn’t mean anything unless we all agree on one definition, and while idealistic developers might reject the idea of central authorities to uphold the meaning of things now, they forget that it was idealistic developers just like them that realised an agreed definition was required and established the OSI 20 years ago to uphold it. The OSI is not the man telling you what you can and can’t do - a shared and agreed definition of what open source is clearly benefits all of us, and if you just invent your own definition through ignorance or sheer bloody mindedness then you’re not legally in the wrong, but you could find yourself embarassed, exploited, or otherwise screwed through not understanding what the consensus definition is.
- MrStonedOne 8y ago
  We are arguing over rather or not a body saying they haven't reviewed rather or not something fits a definition qualifies as not fitting that definition. The answer is no, it does not, hence why OSI's statement is inaccurate.
- kemitchell 8y ago
  The Open Source Definition is plenty ambiguous. It's not even internally consistent. Read the introduction, which sets us up for rules about license terms, and then criterion 2, which talks about source availability. What LICENSE says for the binary doesn't guarantee the distributor source. That doesn't mean OSD was bunk or busted. It means we've preserved it for historical relevance, not operative function. Else we'd've revised a great deal more in 20 years. Instead, in discussion of new license submissions, we routinely see readings of OSD criteria that would exclude the very set of contemporaneous, popular licenses the original Debian Free Software Definition was meant to generalize. For example, that criterion 6 prohibits discrimination against proprietary development as a field of endeavor. OSD isn't a consensus, exactly because it invites so many such readings. There's consensus only insofar as interest groups agree to disagree in OSD terms, as a framework. Some don't. Notably FSF, with its own "definition". The trouble with open source is that it's a movement, a community idea, not an entry in any formal lexicon, not a fixed point. License terms are only incidental to that movement, that community idea. A zeitgeist and a name. And there's nothing particularly legal about OSD criteria, apart from the expectation they'll be implemented in the legal medium of public license terms. Legal's no magic font of rigor here. As I'm led to believe, "Free Love" never suffered such discipline as OSI claims now. Free Love was something people were into, stood for, practiced. There was never any organization proffering a definition of Free Love as definitive, official in some sense, and telling folks their particular love didn't count, wasn't free enough. "Free Love" meant something because of how it was used and understood, variously, not how it was defined. It was always contested, and contestable. Pretending that the OSD, or more accurately OSI approval, represents consensus for new proposals clearly benefits only those who like the particular status quo that a select subset wish to preserve by clout right now. Circa 2002, OSI was approving plenty of licenses in the vein of Mongo's new terms, to welcome smaller businesses challenging more powerful incumbents on behalf of the open approach. Notably RPL and QFPL and Watcom. The permissive-industrial complex hastens to elide or deprecate those approvals now. Even though today very arguably wasn't reachable without accepting strong reciprocal licenses for dual licensors, as a waystation.

vasco 8y ago

You don't own the term open source mate.

FooBarWidget 8y ago
Your opinion isn't the only one out there. I recognize the OSI as the authority on the term open source. On a more practical level: who do you consider be the authority? If the answer is 'nobody' (except yourself) then that makes the term essentially meaningless because there is no standardization, which means that one should stop using that term.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  MongoDB recognizes OSI as an authority as well, which is why they submitted their license to OSI for approval. Which led us to this moment, where OSI has not (/yet) granted that approval, and that apparently raised gp's hackles for some reason.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    MongoDB recognizes that OSI approval is a nice thing to have as a selling point. I very much doubt that they accept the OSI as an authority that can make binding rules and regulations about who gets to call their software "open source".
- vasco 8y ago
  So by me saying that the term might be interpreted differently by different people - since it can't be owned by anyone now that it's in wide use (and hence implying there's different opinions out there) you assume that I fail to see there's a multitude of different opinions on the matter? That's exactly the point I was making.
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    Only if you're completely ignoring the context, which is MongoDB asked OSI to approve their license as "Open Source" - OSI isn't in a position to do so immediately, and so in OSI's estimation, MongoDB isn't "Open Source"
    - jfk13 8y ago
      As OSI hasn't yet reviewed the license, perhaps it would have been better for the OSI VP to explain that "MongoDB may not meet the OSI definition of Open Source" than to announce (in CAPITALS, no less) that "MongoDB...IS NOT OPEN SOURCE".
      - sangnoir 8y ago
        > "MongoDB may not meet the OSI definition of Open Source" That's just euphemism for "MongoDB is not (certified) Open source". It either is, or isn't; and presently it isn't, for reasons that were entirely under MongoDB's control.
      - BFatts 8y ago
        If it doesn't fit the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) it IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. The license has not been reviewed by the OSI, and there isn't any "Approved until shown otherwise" clause to refer to. So, in the OSI's eyes (and really anyone who knows what open source actually is) it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore.
        jfk13 8y ago
        > If it doesn't fit the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) it IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Well, that presupposes that the OSD is the One True Definition of the term "Open Source"; although the OSD is widely accepted and respected, that's a rather bold claim over an English phrase. > it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore That claim doesn't seem justified at this point. It would be more accurate to say that it is not currently CERTIFIED BY THE OSI as being Open Source -- because the OSI has not yet reviewed the new license. Maybe it will turn out that it is Open Source (as per the OSD), maybe not. Until the license is properly reviewed, we simply don't know.
- tyingq 8y ago
  OSI seems to recognize they don't own the term. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
- jpambrun 8y ago
  The authority on word definitions is a dictionary, so that we don't have to argue like that. This definition seems suitable: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
  - themoonbus 8y ago
    Dictionaries reflect common usage and shared understanding, they're not some infallible source. If the technology community started using the term "open source" in a different way, the dictionary would have to be updated to reflect the new meaning.
  - parent5446 8y ago
    Strange, my dictionary has a different definition: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/open-source https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/open-source
  - BFatts 8y ago
    The definitions in a dictionary are for general purposes and not used, necessarily, in legal battles. There are legal definitions for things like Intellectual Property, Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks. These definitions are what will be used when it comes to determining, legally, what open source is - not some wordsmith.
  - pdkl95 8y ago
    Noah Webster did use a strongly prescriptive approach when he wrote his dictionary. His decision to use alternate or simplified spellings of some words is still seen today as the differences between American English and British English. Linguistic prescription - the idea that there is a single "correct" language and other uses of language are somehow inferior or improper - was used to intentionally to give American English it's own identity. Fortunately, most modern dictionaries recognize that languages evolve, using a descriptive approach, updating definitions when needed to reflect how words are actually used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._descriptive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._de...
- module0000 8y ago
  >> who do you consider be the authority? That would be Richard Matthew Stallman, the proverbial OG in this entire field.
  - nailer 8y ago
    ESR and O Reilly are the OGs for OSS, though they certainly owe a debt to RMS
    - gonzo 8y ago
      Neither invented the term, they just marketed it, because it directly benefitted them. Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute is the "OG" for the term "open source" as applied to software.
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    You will find that RMS detests "Open Source"[1]. He's more of a Free software guy, the distinction on user's freedom is important. 1.https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      I think OP meant in the spiritual sense, free software is the original "open-source". A better one, I'd argue, but that's a different discussion.
      - sangnoir 8y ago
        I was addressing OP's suggestion that RMS is the authority on "Open Source" (which was the question further up the thread). He'd rather have you use/contribute (to) Free software instead.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        Yes, I understood that, I assume the OP meant that he is an authority on "open-source" in that "free software" was the original "open-source" and thus "open-source" has RMS a lot to thank for. Otherwise I agree.
- gwbas1c 8y ago
  Strongly disagree. "Open Source" is not a trademark, no one entity can claim ownership over what defines open source.
jesseb 8y ago
They're referring specifically to The Open Source Definition[1] outlined by the Open Source Initiative. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
BFatts 8y ago
The OSI owns the definition, yes. You are incorrect. See https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd which is what DEFINES open source. The term has been around for 20 years. Your lack of understanding the history doesn't make you any kind of an expert.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  > The OSI owns the definition No, OSI doesn't own the definition and doesn't get to define open source. Some people agree with that definition, some don't. Nobody has to though. You can't really own what other people think, you can only try to agree on some definition during interaction. No need to pretend there is some universal truth that they just don't know about. It's an agreement, not truth. And OSI might become irrelevant anyway if it doesn't change in light of recently emerged licenses with more restrictions and doesn't certify them in some way. People will just stick to a handful of popular known licenses and call them open source.
  - BFatts 8y ago
    Yes, they do! They are the ones that put together the OSD (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) which they derived from the DGSL. No one else has defined open source, not even Richard M. Stallman. His definition is for "Free Software", not "Open Source". So when it comes to who owns the definition, the definitive answer is the OSI. Anything else is just subjective opinions. You must not work. Because businesses that do REAL BUSINESS and use Open Source are happy that there is the OSD and approved OSI licenses. That way, we can make real, LEGAL decisions. For individual developers, they might have a different idea of what the definition is, but the actual reference to what defines it is at: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Reading that will clarify what open source is and isn't. Anything else is just "free software" and should hunt down the FSF for licenses and such. RMS has a very different opinion on software that DOES NOT WORK for large corporations.
    - zzzcpan 8y ago
      OSD is said subjective opinion, not a universally agreed upon definition.
mithr 8y ago
In a funny way, I actually don't think ownership of the term, or even who gets to decide that, is what really matters. Mongo can release their software under a license they term "open source", or "special mongo license", or "license X" -- they're under no obligation to use any commonly-accepted licenses or terms. They are certainly free to call themselves "open source" under any new license, and make their arguments as to why they believe that term applies. However, what really matters here is whether, if they choose to do that, developers would still be willing to freely contribute to Mongo's code base, and whether companies who use open source software will continue to use their product. Because _that's_ the reason Mongo cares about being "open source". If most developers and organizations recognize the OSI, with their license approval process, as the arbiters of what constitutes an open source license, then that's the reason the OSI's opinion here really counts. Not because they have some divine right to that term, but simply because if they say "after review, we don't consider this project to be open source by our definition of open source", developers and organizations may hesitate to contribute to, or use, this project.

JaimeThompson 8y ago

I wasn't aware that the OSI was the only one who could declare something to be "OPEN SOURCE". Is there a certification fee to have my license / code blessed with the designation?

vmbrasseur 8y ago
There's no fee, and no need to submit any code. The entire approval process is documented on our website: https://opensource.org/approval https://opensource.org/approval
- JaimeThompson 8y ago
  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.
  - vmbrasseur 8y ago
    Please see this comment for more information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231270
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    >>I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. Sorry, who said anything about a "legal" right? Maybe you're reading too much into the OP's comment. Mongo submitted an application at OSI, and OSI is saying that currently, they don't consider Mongo open-source, based on their own definition. Perhaps you're just confused?
  - BFatts 8y ago
    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.

mpdehaan2 8y ago

This seems like FUD to me. While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea of free software. Rather, the term open source was a reaction to the desire for commerical enterprises to avoid saying software was free. Now it rejects the same argument from developers of software to make a profit, which I find ironic relative to the founding mission. Previously, Commons Clause was called out in aggressive terms in twitter, rather than seeking to understand the underlying rationale. Some of my thoughts: https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-licenses-d2d9d819a10 https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-... I am left to believe OSI views this as a useful political time to self-market, or otherwise sees licenses like this - which intend to fairly compensate software developers - as something that does not promote the interests of those that primarily fund it. I'm sorry, but we don't need a gatekeeper anymore.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source. The underlying reasons behind the Anti-Commons Clause are unimportant if the execution leads to such an egregious violation of these principles. I support the OSI and their mission is important. Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms while reaping its benefits is ridiculous. I'm not saying that MongoDB is in the wrong here. The new license is perhaps misguided in that it seems functionally equivalent to the AGPL, but after I read it I think it meets the OSD. However, MongoDB should have spoken to the OSI before switching their license to be sure.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  >Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects, so this statement is quite ironic.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sam0x17 8y ago

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. All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form, with no implication whatsoever made about the license of said code. "Free and open source" on the other hand implies a permissive license. 3. I don't know anything about the MongoDB license before or after these changes, I just despise the tone of this message. So to recap. OSI is just some random organization with no bearing on what society decides open source is or isn't, and therefore what they say DOES NOT MATTER.

dx87 8y ago
MongDB submitted their license for approval, so obviously it matters to them. Whether you think it matters or not is irrelevant, you're just some random HN user with no bearing on what society decides open source is or isn't.
joshsimmons 8y ago
Open source is a term of art with an agreed upon definition, and it has been for 20 years which, not-so-coincidentally, is also when the Open Source Initiative was founded. The fact that you've never heard of OSI means we've been doing our job well enough that you've never needed to know about it. The fact that you've never heard of OSI does NOT mean that it's not legitimate, and frankly, that kind of rhetoric is just silly.
- PuffinBlue 8y ago
  If this is held true and everyone agrees it, all this conversation/wider thread has served to show is that the term has reached 'genericization'. The OSI can claim/define what is wishes to but in practice it has lost authorship of the 'open source' definition. Just like Google/Xerox/Kleenex/Taser/Bubble Wrap/Dumpster/Escalator/thermos/Chapstick/Frisbee/Photoshop et al.

rmc 8y ago

> MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. It might still be open source. It's accurate to say it's not under an OSI approved open source licence, but that's not exactly the same thing.

BFatts 8y ago
The OSI is the founder and DEFINER of the term "open source" so saying that it's open source without an OSI approved license is like saying your app's an approved Android app without it first being reviewed. Get it?? Open Source is a term coined by the OSI.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Open Source is a term coined by the OSI. No, it's not: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html And even if it was, popular terms reach beyond the persons/organizations that coined them. Unless it's trademarked, it's just a term all kinds of people use, many of which don't know/care about OSI. In fact: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
  - BFatts 8y ago
    Okay, pedantry... If you want to be specific: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... But it was done coincidentally with the discussions that ultimately led to the OSI and the OSD. >> Bruce Perens has applied to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. The trademark conditions will be known as the ``Open Source Definition'', essentially the same as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Your own reference contains this text, btw.
    - gonzo 8y ago
      Bruce attempted to register a certification mark (a type of trademark), but the application lapsed in 1999 after OSI discovered that there was virtually zero chance of registering the term "open source" as a mark, as the term is too descriptive.

module0000 8y ago

>> MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE Hey, that's not true - neither yourself nor OSI or anyone else gets to decide that. If the nice folks at MongoDB continue to release their source code, then it's open source. End of story.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> If the nice folks at MongoDB continue to release their source code, then it's open source. No, it's source available / shared source. “Open” doesn't mean merely visible in the phrase “open source”.
ken 8y ago
Pre-GNU/BSD/Linux Unix included source code, too, but I don't think anyone would claim it was "open source" in any sense of the word.

jahewson 8y ago

I don't think that an appeal to authority is a very good way to make this argument. It's the blatant restriction to the field of endeavor which makes this license quite obviously not open source, because there's nothing open about something which certain people are not allowed to use.

BFatts 8y ago
But the OSD is maintained by the OSI, so an appeal to "authority" is a great way to make this argument. The OSI gets to decide what fits their OSD (which you quote) so it's really a non-issue.
metheus 8y ago
Who's not allowed to use it?

muks 8y ago

> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Perhaps you meant to say "is not OSI Certified", because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase "open source". See what's on your own website: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... On the other comments in this thread, even though MongoDB have "submitted" to having the OSI review their license, OSI still aren't capable of restricting anyone's rights on the use of the phrase "open source" including MongoDB's. I can see your organization tries to make sure that there is an approved set of principles that identify libre/free software which is good. The phrase "open source" has been used in myriad ways since its early days, and not just for software. I'm a programmer who has written open source since 2000. I would defend you when it comes to the benefits of libre software, but you can't restrict others over using something that you don't legally own.

hueving 8y ago
Not sure anyone actually thinks "open source" is a term owned by an organization and the gp didn't say they were restricting Mongo, so I'm not sure if your clarification is necessary. It's like someone claiming certain software doesn't scale. There is no need to clarify that the author doesn't own the word "scalability". Op is speaking for the OSI's opinion on whether it's open source or not.
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  Then Op should not say in all caps, "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mcny 8y ago
    I understood it as meaning "my organization cannot yet certify it as open source" with yet being the operative word.

mintplant 8y ago

While you're reviewing the license, I'd be interested in the OSI's opinion as to whether or not the SSPL retains compatibility with GPL software in light of the striking of the relevant paragraph in section 13—and what the implications would be of adding it back in.

codegeek 8y ago

Honest question. If I write some code and release it on Github with an MIT license, do I need permission from OSI to call my project "Open Source"? Is there a legal requirement? I am confused.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> Honest question. If I write some code and release it on Github with an MIT license, do I need permission from OSI to call my project "Open Source"? MIT is an approved license, so yes. > is a legal requirement? No.
joshsimmons 8y ago
Fair question :-) And the answer is no, you would not need OSI's permission to call your project open source -- because you'd be using the MIT license which has been reviewed and approved by the OSI. You can find the list of approved licenses, along with information about the review and approval process, over at https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses
- singlow 8y ago
  You can call your software open source no matter what license you use. People may harrass you, but there is no legal restriction on the use of the term and OSI cannot sue you.
CydeWeys 8y ago
You don't need anyone's permission to call anything "open source". There's certainly no legal requirement. Note, however, if this language starts making its way into contracts, and you're calling something "open source" that isn't actually open source by any standard meanings of the term, then you could be in trouble. But releasing something under a common open source license is prima facie open source, so no problems there.

kazinator 8y ago

> non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. You don't own the term "open source", and nobody requires your approval for its usage. "May not carry the OSI trademark or logo" is not the same thing as "is not open source".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kolderman 8y ago

> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE You sound like a fucking tyrant.

dang 8y ago
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again. The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cyphar 8y ago

> There also is no guarantee that the license will be found to obey the Open Source Definition, and therefore no guarantee that it will be approved. This shouldn't be surprising -- it blatantly violates the spirit of section 9 (if not the actual wording). I would be quite shocked if the OSI decides the new license is "open source". > 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software. The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. I wonder what RMS / the FSF have to say about it...

MrStonedOne 8y ago

> therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Please edit your comment to be more accurate. If you later approve the license, then under your company's own definition of "open source" that means it was always open source, even now, so saying they are not open source when you admit you have not reviewed the license fully yet, is inaccurate, and could very well lead your company into legal liability if your statement turns out to be untrue and mongodb sues for slander. furthermore: If you later deny the license, that may mean it was always not open source. May. Your board is not the gatekeeper to the open source community, you are not the controller, authority, or president of the open source community, and the open source community as a whole is the only body that can decide what is "Open Source"

theclaw 8y ago

I certainly learned some things today. I didn’t realise ‘open source’ had such a specific meaning, and I understand why it’s useful to establish the definition so there is no ambiguity. Reading the replies to this thread is like watching hippies fight over the definition of free love. Open source doesn’t mean anything unless we all agree on one definition, and while idealistic developers might reject the idea of central authorities to uphold the meaning of things now, they forget that it was idealistic developers just like them that realised an agreed definition was required and established the OSI 20 years ago to uphold it. The OSI is not the man telling you what you can and can’t do - a shared and agreed definition of what open source is clearly benefits all of us, and if you just invent your own definition through ignorance or sheer bloody mindedness then you’re not legally in the wrong, but you could find yourself embarassed, exploited, or otherwise screwed through not understanding what the consensus definition is.

MrStonedOne 8y ago
We are arguing over rather or not a body saying they haven't reviewed rather or not something fits a definition qualifies as not fitting that definition. The answer is no, it does not, hence why OSI's statement is inaccurate.
kemitchell 8y ago
The Open Source Definition is plenty ambiguous. It's not even internally consistent. Read the introduction, which sets us up for rules about license terms, and then criterion 2, which talks about source availability. What LICENSE says for the binary doesn't guarantee the distributor source. That doesn't mean OSD was bunk or busted. It means we've preserved it for historical relevance, not operative function. Else we'd've revised a great deal more in 20 years. Instead, in discussion of new license submissions, we routinely see readings of OSD criteria that would exclude the very set of contemporaneous, popular licenses the original Debian Free Software Definition was meant to generalize. For example, that criterion 6 prohibits discrimination against proprietary development as a field of endeavor. OSD isn't a consensus, exactly because it invites so many such readings. There's consensus only insofar as interest groups agree to disagree in OSD terms, as a framework. Some don't. Notably FSF, with its own "definition". The trouble with open source is that it's a movement, a community idea, not an entry in any formal lexicon, not a fixed point. License terms are only incidental to that movement, that community idea. A zeitgeist and a name. And there's nothing particularly legal about OSD criteria, apart from the expectation they'll be implemented in the legal medium of public license terms. Legal's no magic font of rigor here. As I'm led to believe, "Free Love" never suffered such discipline as OSI claims now. Free Love was something people were into, stood for, practiced. There was never any organization proffering a definition of Free Love as definitive, official in some sense, and telling folks their particular love didn't count, wasn't free enough. "Free Love" meant something because of how it was used and understood, variously, not how it was defined. It was always contested, and contestable. Pretending that the OSD, or more accurately OSI approval, represents consensus for new proposals clearly benefits only those who like the particular status quo that a select subset wish to preserve by clout right now. Circa 2002, OSI was approving plenty of licenses in the vein of Mongo's new terms, to welcome smaller businesses challenging more powerful incumbents on behalf of the open approach. Notably RPL and QFPL and Watcom. The permissive-industrial complex hastens to elide or deprecate those approvals now. Even though today very arguably wasn't reachable without accepting strong reciprocal licenses for dual licensors, as a waystation.