7 ms·

> 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 C

by 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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
darkarmani 8y ago
> because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase You are really hung up on this. Where did they say they were restricting the use of the phrase? If they said: "MongoDB is not good software" would you be saying they aren't allowed to restrict MongoDB from saying they are good software?
- axaxs 8y ago
  Open source is mostly objective, unlike 'good software'. The parent comment stated in caps that MongoDB is not open source, which is objectively untrue. It's a silly thing to bicker about, but the original should have probably said something along the lines of 'OSI approved open source license'.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    The only objective definition of Open Source I know of is OSI's. Everything else is a hodge-podge of whatever the user of the word feels it's open. Is it reading the code? Modifying it? Redistributing it? There's no consensus besides OSI.
    - MrStonedOne 8y ago
      But their definition does not restrict it to OSI approved licenses, so their assertion its not open source because it hasn't been approved is not valid.
- brentonator 8y ago
  This VP specifically states MongoDB "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE" presumably referencing their own organization's definition of open source. What's worse is their current definition technically qualifies MongoDB as open source. She conflates a non-OSI-approved license with the definition of open source very blatantly. As someone just above said open source for many simply means the source code is open (can be viewed). Edit: Realizing now that "open source" may be a genericized trademark held by one of their board and we may need to ignore their assertions in this thread.
bunderbunder 8y ago
So, yes, technically, OSI does not own the term open source, and it could be that this license does comply with everything set out in the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd), and that means that, technically, "(the latest version of) MongoDB is not open source" is overstating the case. Except that, as a non-lawyer developer who generally agrees with the Open Source Definition, "under an OSI-approved license" is my working definition of "open source". I believe the same is true for many others. And, under that definition, if Ms. Brasseur doesn't consider it to be open source (yet), I'm happy to fall in line with that. She went on to say the magic words that mean so much more to me on this front than any debate about who gets to own the term: "It's probably best to limit your legal risk," and, "at this point." OSI's recommendations are a key part of how I limit my legal risk, and they're working on vetting it as we speak. My best course of action is to sit on my hands and wait for their advice.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Not whether OSI gives it some arbitrary stamp of approval.
  - jkrems 8y ago
    Yeah, but that's a really dangerous position to take and if they'd work with me I'd be quick to set them straight. Because that path leads to legal adventure. What you are describing is "source available", not "open source". And that's a huge difference in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
    - tlrobinson 8y ago
      I'd add "redistribute" to the GP's definition, but the point stands that the definition of "open source" is not "licensed using an OSI approved license"
    - azmenak 8y ago
pessimizer 8y ago
> 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 OSI doesn't define what Free/Libre software is, the Free Software Foundation does. The OSI is in charge of the common definition of "Open Source" software, which is accepted outside of non-software or idiosyncratic usages (such as "open source is when I show my references" or "open source is when I derive my conclusion from publicly available information" which is becoming the common definition in the intelligence field.) It's good when we have a common definition, and discuss that definition rather than the label; it's a waste of time to argue "of course it's organic; it's carbon based!" One thing that we can both agree on is that more people are familiar with the OSI's definition of "open source" than are familiar with your personal definition, so it's probably more productive to talk about the one more people are familiar with.
mindcrime 8y ago
The OSD may not be the de-jure definition of "open source", but it is the de-facto definition. The statement above is correct in all but a trivial, pedantic sense.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Not just trivial and pedantic, this has been a common avenue of attack over the years in an attempt to dilute the meaning of the term. Such as when Microsoft made a concerted effort to try to redefine open source as "non commercial" source available software.

by muks 8y ago

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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

darkarmani 8y ago

> because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase You are really hung up on this. Where did they say they were restricting the use of the phrase? If they said: "MongoDB is not good software" would you be saying they aren't allowed to restrict MongoDB from saying they are good software?

axaxs 8y ago
Open source is mostly objective, unlike 'good software'. The parent comment stated in caps that MongoDB is not open source, which is objectively untrue. It's a silly thing to bicker about, but the original should have probably said something along the lines of 'OSI approved open source license'.
- icebraining 8y ago
  The only objective definition of Open Source I know of is OSI's. Everything else is a hodge-podge of whatever the user of the word feels it's open. Is it reading the code? Modifying it? Redistributing it? There's no consensus besides OSI.
  - MrStonedOne 8y ago
    But their definition does not restrict it to OSI approved licenses, so their assertion its not open source because it hasn't been approved is not valid.
brentonator 8y ago
This VP specifically states MongoDB "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE" presumably referencing their own organization's definition of open source. What's worse is their current definition technically qualifies MongoDB as open source. She conflates a non-OSI-approved license with the definition of open source very blatantly. As someone just above said open source for many simply means the source code is open (can be viewed). Edit: Realizing now that "open source" may be a genericized trademark held by one of their board and we may need to ignore their assertions in this thread.

bunderbunder 8y ago

So, yes, technically, OSI does not own the term open source, and it could be that this license does comply with everything set out in the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd), and that means that, technically, "(the latest version of) MongoDB is not open source" is overstating the case. Except that, as a non-lawyer developer who generally agrees with the Open Source Definition, "under an OSI-approved license" is my working definition of "open source". I believe the same is true for many others. And, under that definition, if Ms. Brasseur doesn't consider it to be open source (yet), I'm happy to fall in line with that. She went on to say the magic words that mean so much more to me on this front than any debate about who gets to own the term: "It's probably best to limit your legal risk," and, "at this point." OSI's recommendations are a key part of how I limit my legal risk, and they're working on vetting it as we speak. My best course of action is to sit on my hands and wait for their advice.

threeseed 8y ago
Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Not whether OSI gives it some arbitrary stamp of approval.
- jkrems 8y ago
  Yeah, but that's a really dangerous position to take and if they'd work with me I'd be quick to set them straight. Because that path leads to legal adventure. What you are describing is "source available", not "open source". And that's a huge difference in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
  - tlrobinson 8y ago
    I'd add "redistribute" to the GP's definition, but the point stands that the definition of "open source" is not "licensed using an OSI approved license"
  - azmenak 8y ago

pessimizer 8y ago

> 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 OSI doesn't define what Free/Libre software is, the Free Software Foundation does. The OSI is in charge of the common definition of "Open Source" software, which is accepted outside of non-software or idiosyncratic usages (such as "open source is when I show my references" or "open source is when I derive my conclusion from publicly available information" which is becoming the common definition in the intelligence field.) It's good when we have a common definition, and discuss that definition rather than the label; it's a waste of time to argue "of course it's organic; it's carbon based!" One thing that we can both agree on is that more people are familiar with the OSI's definition of "open source" than are familiar with your personal definition, so it's probably more productive to talk about the one more people are familiar with.

mindcrime 8y ago

The OSD may not be the de-jure definition of "open source", but it is the de-facto definition. The statement above is correct in all but a trivial, pedantic sense.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Not just trivial and pedantic, this has been a common avenue of attack over the years in an attempt to dilute the meaning of the term. Such as when Microsoft made a concerted effort to try to redefine open source as "non commercial" source available software.