12 ms·

What is the way out? Would love to hear from people.

by dman 8y ago

bilbo0s 8y ago
Not sure this would fall under SSPL in any case. It's clear that what Amazon is doing is using Postgres under the hood, not really mongo. So I'm not sure how that would work if you make an interface shim to make postgres look like mongo, are you then subject to the mongo license? the postgres license? the apache 2.0 mongo api license? all of them? what if clauses of them are mutually exclusive? etc etc etc. Just at a cursory glance it certainly seems like only the apache 2.0 mongo api license would apply. But I guess mongo could try to force the sspl on amazon?
SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
There's no secret formula to stop people from competing with you. If MongoDB Inc is successful, it should be because they run a good document-database-as-a-service people want to use, not because they earn indefinite seigniorage from launching a popular open source project.
- KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
  But isn't it wrong to place all economic value in the hosting layer rather than the software layer?
  - systoll 8y ago
    Maybe, but MongoDB did that by themselves by making the software layer free.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- gaius 8y ago
  because they run a good document-database-as-a-service Spoiler: they do not
  - tebs1200 8y ago
    They don't? I've been using Atlas for over a year now and I don't have any complaints. It was super quick to set up and I've never had a single issue in terms of performance or availability. What have your issues with Atlas been?
  - winrid 8y ago
    In comparison to what?
- sipos 8y ago
  > If MongoDB Inc is successful, it should be because they run a good document-database-as-a-service people want to use Unfortunately, something that is good, and something people want to use, are not the same thing. People will use AWS's offering even if it is worse and harder to use, because it is bundled as part of AWS. That is a safe option (it can't be that bad if AWS has released it) and an easy one (no need to think about what to use, you are using AWS already. Being a big provider of virtual machines puts them in a very strong position to sell loads of other stuff.
Lazare 8y ago
Ultimately, Cantrill put it well: > ...for those open source companies that still harbor magical beliefs, let me put this to you as directly as possible: cloud services providers are emphatically not going to license your proprietary software. I mean, you knew that, right? MongoDB Inc cannot make Amazon pay commercial license fees. That is not a thing that will happen. They have a lever in front of them with two positions, one of which is "large cloud companies might use your software for free", and the other is "large cloud companies will not use your software at all". They didn't like the first option, so they gave the lever a yank, but they're not going to like the second option, and there is no third option. The way out is not to try and build a business on the assumption that people who have no interest, requirement or reason to give you large amounts of money will inexplicably do so anyhow. :) This thread already has people eyeing up DocumentDB's pricing and comparing it favourably to MongoDB's competing Atlas service, and it's almost unthinkable to suggest that Atlas can compete on price with Amazon. The way to win this game is not to play; the rules are not in your favour.
- meddlepal 8y ago
  Could Mongo or other companies use the Oracle v. Google precedent regarding API copyright to extract money from competitive vultures like Amazon?
  - naner 8y ago
    Oracle are the good guys in this scenario?
    - spullara 8y ago
      They always were the OK guys in that argument. Google invented a whole new VM and bastardized the language just to get out of a $1/device licensing fee for mobile uses. The Java ecosystem has been irreparably harmed by Dalvik and its lack of support for more modern versions of Java. On another note, anyone that doesn't think API design is a creative endeavor and worthy of protection probably has never made a great API before. It may be OK to accept that and also let other people use the API for free but I think ruling that it isn't is BS.
manigandham 8y ago
The problem is VC backed companies expecting ridiculous multiples. There are thousands of very successful and profitable software companies that make proprietary products and offer managed services, training, support, etc. It's a great business, but it's not going to offer 100x wild startup growth. These companies would all do fine if they bootstrapped or took a small seed/loan instead of taking on 100s of millions.
cortesoft 8y ago
The linked blog sorts of hints at it, but the way out is to not try to build business models around people paying directly for some sort of license. Successful open source does not require someone making money off developing it. It is successful when it is something that helps a profitable company but is not core to their business; then, they benefit from making it open source and having everyone contribute to its development and maintenance. Or, you make money off support and consulting. The key take away is, you aren't going to make money off selling licenses for open source. Which is good, I think.
- kemitchell 8y ago
  SSPL, the new license for Mongo, isn’t written to force developers already using Mongo to build apps to pay license fees. It’s designed to stop cloud companies from offering managed Mongo with closed service rigging. I suppose Mongo could sell exceptions to cloud companies, the way other companies dual license libraries or frameworks. But even Mongo’s bread and butter paid deals aren’t primarily about alternative license rights for open code. They’re about closed add-on code and services, as you describe. Dual licensing, on its own, is an old and plenty good model for funding development of open source code. I’ve heard wind of dual licensing deals done decades and decades ago, maybe even before GPLv2.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Right, but the point of the article the GP linked was that expecting a cloud company to pay for a license for add-on code... instead, they are just going to write their own versions to work with the open source parts.
    - kemitchell 8y ago
      You’re right about the article. But the SSPL approach is different from what we’ve seen from Redis Labs, Elastic, Cofluent, and Cockroach. SSPL applies to Mongo’s “open core” itself. The other companies have applied new terms to previously “closed shell” add-ons. The question is whether giants will pay the cost of reimplementing entire stacks, core and shell. I don’t have the time myself, so I’ll have to wait on a report about how compatible AWS DocumentDB really is. Given AWS history, I’d expect they’ll get most of the popular functionality, most of the way, but gotchas will abound, and they’ll never hit 100%. Switching cost of code won’t bottom out unless DocumentDB takes lead mindshare, which closed clones rarely manage.
DannyBee 8y ago
Stop assuming the value in the development ecosystem belongs to you (and should be extractable as money). It doesn't. Realistically, the next step you will see, unless something changes, is that they will start going after people for API duplication. They have precedent (currently) on their side in the US. None of the reasonable players will touch this, but you can be sure some VC backed "open source" player will be willing to touch this 3rd rail in exchange for a Series A.
- dman 8y ago
  By "they" do you mean Mongodb?
- kemitchell 8y ago
  Arguendo: Cloud providers seem to be assuming that the development ecosystem belongs to them. They are extracting tons of money. Why don’t they just accept that hosting storage and compute will become commodity services, driving margins toward zero, and give up? Plenty of reasonable players will touch Oracle v. Google going forward. I’m as eager to debate the opinion as other counsel. But procedural history demonstrates directly, not theoretically, that it’s effective against tech giants. In the matter of API Owner v. Google, if API Owner touches that “third rail”, Google gets the shock.
- amyjess 8y ago
  > Realistically, the next step you will see, unless something changes, is that they will start going after people for API duplication. They have precedent (currently) on their side in the US. IANAL, but since they already released the API as open-source under the Apache 2.0 license, this avenue is closed off to them.
  - metheus 8y ago
    The API is implemented on the server side; the licensing of the MongoDB drivers is irrelevant.

What is the way out? Would love to hear from people.

by dman 8y ago

What is the way out? Would love to hear from people.

Not sure this would fall under SSPL in any case. It's clear that what Amazon is doing is using Postgres under the hood, not really mongo. So I'm not sure how that would work if you make an interface shim to make postgres look like mongo, are you then subject to the mongo license? the postgres license? the apache 2.0 mongo api license? all of them? what if clauses of them are mutually exclusive? etc etc etc. Just at a cursory glance it certainly seems like only the apache 2.0 mongo api license would apply. But I guess mongo could try to force the sspl on amazon?

SpicyLemonZest 8y ago

There's no secret formula to stop people from competing with you. If MongoDB Inc is successful, it should be because they run a good document-database-as-a-service people want to use, not because they earn indefinite seigniorage from launching a popular open source project.

KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
But isn't it wrong to place all economic value in the hosting layer rather than the software layer?
- systoll 8y ago
  Maybe, but MongoDB did that by themselves by making the software layer free.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gaius 8y ago
because they run a good document-database-as-a-service Spoiler: they do not
- tebs1200 8y ago
  They don't? I've been using Atlas for over a year now and I don't have any complaints. It was super quick to set up and I've never had a single issue in terms of performance or availability. What have your issues with Atlas been?
- winrid 8y ago
  In comparison to what?
sipos 8y ago
> If MongoDB Inc is successful, it should be because they run a good document-database-as-a-service people want to use Unfortunately, something that is good, and something people want to use, are not the same thing. People will use AWS's offering even if it is worse and harder to use, because it is bundled as part of AWS. That is a safe option (it can't be that bad if AWS has released it) and an easy one (no need to think about what to use, you are using AWS already. Being a big provider of virtual machines puts them in a very strong position to sell loads of other stuff.

Lazare 8y ago

Ultimately, Cantrill put it well: > ...for those open source companies that still harbor magical beliefs, let me put this to you as directly as possible: cloud services providers are emphatically not going to license your proprietary software. I mean, you knew that, right? MongoDB Inc cannot make Amazon pay commercial license fees. That is not a thing that will happen. They have a lever in front of them with two positions, one of which is "large cloud companies might use your software for free", and the other is "large cloud companies will not use your software at all". They didn't like the first option, so they gave the lever a yank, but they're not going to like the second option, and there is no third option. The way out is not to try and build a business on the assumption that people who have no interest, requirement or reason to give you large amounts of money will inexplicably do so anyhow. :) This thread already has people eyeing up DocumentDB's pricing and comparing it favourably to MongoDB's competing Atlas service, and it's almost unthinkable to suggest that Atlas can compete on price with Amazon. The way to win this game is not to play; the rules are not in your favour.

meddlepal 8y ago
Could Mongo or other companies use the Oracle v. Google precedent regarding API copyright to extract money from competitive vultures like Amazon?
- naner 8y ago
  Oracle are the good guys in this scenario?
  - spullara 8y ago
    They always were the OK guys in that argument. Google invented a whole new VM and bastardized the language just to get out of a $1/device licensing fee for mobile uses. The Java ecosystem has been irreparably harmed by Dalvik and its lack of support for more modern versions of Java. On another note, anyone that doesn't think API design is a creative endeavor and worthy of protection probably has never made a great API before. It may be OK to accept that and also let other people use the API for free but I think ruling that it isn't is BS.

manigandham 8y ago

The problem is VC backed companies expecting ridiculous multiples. There are thousands of very successful and profitable software companies that make proprietary products and offer managed services, training, support, etc. It's a great business, but it's not going to offer 100x wild startup growth. These companies would all do fine if they bootstrapped or took a small seed/loan instead of taking on 100s of millions.

cortesoft 8y ago

The linked blog sorts of hints at it, but the way out is to not try to build business models around people paying directly for some sort of license. Successful open source does not require someone making money off developing it. It is successful when it is something that helps a profitable company but is not core to their business; then, they benefit from making it open source and having everyone contribute to its development and maintenance. Or, you make money off support and consulting. The key take away is, you aren't going to make money off selling licenses for open source. Which is good, I think.

kemitchell 8y ago
SSPL, the new license for Mongo, isn’t written to force developers already using Mongo to build apps to pay license fees. It’s designed to stop cloud companies from offering managed Mongo with closed service rigging. I suppose Mongo could sell exceptions to cloud companies, the way other companies dual license libraries or frameworks. But even Mongo’s bread and butter paid deals aren’t primarily about alternative license rights for open code. They’re about closed add-on code and services, as you describe. Dual licensing, on its own, is an old and plenty good model for funding development of open source code. I’ve heard wind of dual licensing deals done decades and decades ago, maybe even before GPLv2.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Right, but the point of the article the GP linked was that expecting a cloud company to pay for a license for add-on code... instead, they are just going to write their own versions to work with the open source parts.
  - kemitchell 8y ago
    You’re right about the article. But the SSPL approach is different from what we’ve seen from Redis Labs, Elastic, Cofluent, and Cockroach. SSPL applies to Mongo’s “open core” itself. The other companies have applied new terms to previously “closed shell” add-ons. The question is whether giants will pay the cost of reimplementing entire stacks, core and shell. I don’t have the time myself, so I’ll have to wait on a report about how compatible AWS DocumentDB really is. Given AWS history, I’d expect they’ll get most of the popular functionality, most of the way, but gotchas will abound, and they’ll never hit 100%. Switching cost of code won’t bottom out unless DocumentDB takes lead mindshare, which closed clones rarely manage.

DannyBee 8y ago

Stop assuming the value in the development ecosystem belongs to you (and should be extractable as money). It doesn't. Realistically, the next step you will see, unless something changes, is that they will start going after people for API duplication. They have precedent (currently) on their side in the US. None of the reasonable players will touch this, but you can be sure some VC backed "open source" player will be willing to touch this 3rd rail in exchange for a Series A.

dman 8y ago
By "they" do you mean Mongodb?
kemitchell 8y ago
Arguendo: Cloud providers seem to be assuming that the development ecosystem belongs to them. They are extracting tons of money. Why don’t they just accept that hosting storage and compute will become commodity services, driving margins toward zero, and give up? Plenty of reasonable players will touch Oracle v. Google going forward. I’m as eager to debate the opinion as other counsel. But procedural history demonstrates directly, not theoretically, that it’s effective against tech giants. In the matter of API Owner v. Google, if API Owner touches that “third rail”, Google gets the shock.
amyjess 8y ago
> Realistically, the next step you will see, unless something changes, is that they will start going after people for API duplication. They have precedent (currently) on their side in the US. IANAL, but since they already released the API as open-source under the Apache 2.0 license, this avenue is closed off to them.
- metheus 8y ago
  The API is implemented on the server side; the licensing of the MongoDB drivers is irrelevant.