4 ms·

Probably the licensing change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB#Licensing

nothis 8y ago
What’s the problem here?
- ac29 8y ago
  It "requires that those making the software publicly available as a service must make the service's source code available under this license".
  - DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
    That change seems to be in line with the FOSS ethos. I imagine that from the perspective of the FOSS community, using FOSS software in a SaaS product without releasing the code that drives the service is just a loophole.
    - stordoff 8y ago
      IIRC, the uproar was less about the principle, and more about how it is defined: > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge [...] Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version If I make a generic website that uses Mongo as a database, does that constitute making Mongo available as a service? It's clearly interacting with the functionality through a computer network, and could be said to derive its value primarily from the value of Mongo. That's clearly not the intention[1], but I would not be confident making that claim solely based on the licence text (and the FAQ is not incorporated as part of the licence). There's also some debate about whether it meets Section 9 of the Open Source Definition ("License Must Not Restrict Other Software"). [1] https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license...
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        Well. No reasonable person would ever say that your website derives its value primarily from the database engine. But lawsuits aren't forced to be reasonable.
        stordoff 8y ago
        Exactly - I don't think it's reasonable, but I also don't think it's clear enough to make a business decision based on it. I would also find it difficult to argue that it's _not_ "enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network" (given how broad it is), which is the first example given.

nothis 8y ago

What’s the problem here?

ac29 8y ago
It "requires that those making the software publicly available as a service must make the service's source code available under this license".
- DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
  That change seems to be in line with the FOSS ethos. I imagine that from the perspective of the FOSS community, using FOSS software in a SaaS product without releasing the code that drives the service is just a loophole.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    IIRC, the uproar was less about the principle, and more about how it is defined: > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge [...] Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version If I make a generic website that uses Mongo as a database, does that constitute making Mongo available as a service? It's clearly interacting with the functionality through a computer network, and could be said to derive its value primarily from the value of Mongo. That's clearly not the intention[1], but I would not be confident making that claim solely based on the licence text (and the FAQ is not incorporated as part of the licence). There's also some debate about whether it meets Section 9 of the Open Source Definition ("License Must Not Restrict Other Software"). [1] https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license...
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Well. No reasonable person would ever say that your website derives its value primarily from the database engine. But lawsuits aren't forced to be reasonable.
      - stordoff 8y ago
        Exactly - I don't think it's reasonable, but I also don't think it's clear enough to make a business decision based on it. I would also find it difficult to argue that it's _not_ "enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network" (given how broad it is), which is the first example given.