4 ms·
Open Source needs a definition and that definition has been governed by OSI: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd just like how Free Software h
by bad_user 8y ago
Open Source needs a definition and that definition has been governed by OSI: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd just like how Free Software has been governed by FSF: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Yes, we need an organization that governs over such a definition and over compliance, because otherwise the term becomes meaningless, due to being sexy for marketing purposes. Back in the day companies like Microsoft actually tried to hijack it via restrictive "shared source" licenses. And those cute little projects on GitHub without a license? Those are a legal minefield ;-)
Developers are not lawyers, we don't read the fine print. That's why we have to rely on certain freedoms when hearing the term Open Source. And one of those freedoms has been the freedom to run the program without restrictions. And another freedom has been the freedom to distribute the program along with other programs, without imposing restrictions on those other programs.
AGPL has been in my opinion restrictive enough that I don't think it is Open Source to begin with — smarter people than myself disagree, but this new SSPL is a farce because it extends those restrictions far beyond derived works. So I hope SSPL doesn't get approved by either OSI or FSF.
The GitHub repository lists 350 contributors.
Many of those are third-party I'm sure. So how many of them are happy with MongoDB's bait and switch? For that matter, how many people that advocated for MongoDB over the years would have done so in the knowledge that MongoDB is not Open Source?
> MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like
Sure, but that's not an argument. We also have the right to complain about it, to campaign against it and to stop using it.
The truth is the company behind MongoDB tries to eat their cake and have it too. Well, that's not how things work. Either you're developing Open Source and are thus happy with other companies profiting from your work, or you stop developing Open Source, but when you do, don't be hypocritical about it.
- zzzcpan 8y agoSo, you don't like for the term "open source" to include anti lock-in conditions to protect users freedoms and only ok with it if the license permits lock-in exploitation of users via hosted services? That's the kind of open source definition I strongly disagree with.