5 ms·

Serious question: can someone explain why the server side public license is not an open source license, with specific reference to AGPL? Is it because of the pr

Serious question: can someone explain why the server side public license is not an open source license, with specific reference to AGPL? Is it because of the provision forcing the source code release of auxillary software used to run the software as a service? As far as I can tell, it meets the FSF's free software definition and the only that seems questionable in the OSI's open source definition is point 9.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> can someone explain why the server side public license is not an open source license Depends on what you think 'open source' licence means. The source is literally openly available. There are just some extra restrictions on what you can do with it. The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence.
- gwd 7y ago
  > The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. Ref please? The FSF was certainly around pushing for "free software" long before "open source" was commonly used to refer to copyleft / permissive licenses. And the sole purpose for OSI's existence is exactly to define what is and is not "open source". In any case, it is very important to define terminology and protect its use. The goal of "open source" is certainly not to simply let people look at the source, but to let people use the source in certain ways. People have thought long and hard about exactly what the minimum standards are to consider something "free software" or "open source". You can find the core criteria for OSI here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd And the "Four Freedoms" for the Free Software Foundation here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > Ref please? Both ESR and the OSI will tell you this. For example http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html > Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug. The OSI tried and failed to trademark 'open source' - because it's simply a description. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... > We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive Maybe it turned out to be a bug after all!
    - gwd 7y ago
      While ESR's link establishes precedence, it doesn't actually tell me what it means in an intelligence context. From Wikipedia [1]: > Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is data collected from publicly available sources to be used in an intelligence context. IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related. Whether or not they could trademark the term, when people in our community say "open source", they specifically mean something which matches OSI or FSF's definitions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related. ESR says specifically that it's related - he says the relation is a 'feature' of the name, even.
        pseudalopex 7y ago
        Some features start as happy accidents. ESR was the president of the OSI when it published the Open Source Definition and applied for the trademark. Justifying a weaker definition can’t be why he called it a feature.
  - wmf 7y ago
    OSI hasn't been doing a good job. They're trying to turn it around but only time will tell.
  - tannhaeuser 7y ago
    > Ref please? Here you go: http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  > The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. You are misinformed, at best. 1. FSF predates the term "open source", that much is true. 2. OSI coined the term "open source." And FSF has has always had issues with that. 3. OSI, on their front page, above the fold, advertises their mission as stewarding the definition of "open source". Again, FSF isn't so keen on that. In any case, if you want to come up with your own definition of "open source" you are asking to be the third person in a three-way fight. Good luck with that. Anyway, I have not looked at MongoDB's license. If it is too restrictive for the taste of this or that distro, then I guess it has achieved MongoDB's objective.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > OSI coined the term "open source." The trademark office didn't think so. And ESR said they used the existing term from the intelligence community, which I guess is why.
    - dbcurtis 7y ago
      Ok. I guess “first applied it to software” is more accurate. I was misinformed:)
- danShumway 7y ago
  What you're describing is source-available. If that was the only criteria for an open source license, then there would be tons of additional proprietary software we'd have to classify as open source -- Unreal Engine, for example. Regardless, the word isn't really the important part of Homebrew's decision. Whatever you want to call it, Homebrew has decided it can't include MongoDB in its repository while guaranteeing the freedoms of its users. A semantic debate over the meaning of 'open source' won't change that. That doesn't mean the semantic debate is useless, but regardless of where you fall on that debate, MongoDB's license does not guarantee freedom 0 of the FSF's definition, and that's going to effect which open source organizations are willing to distribute or build on top of MongoDB. You should expect platforms like Homebrew that care about freedom 0 to continue to abandon MongoDB.
- liability 7y ago
  Anybody using their personal definition of the term, rather than an OSI or FSF compatible definition and without bothering to explicitly state their personal definition upfront, is wasting everybody else's time and being a pain in the ass. Undisclosed personal definitions are an unnecessary impediment to mutual understanding.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Historically “open” was shorthand for “mostly POSIX compliant at the source level”. The term “open source” for licensing is much more recent.
xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
Since it's literally impossible to comply with the article 13 of SSPL, MongoDB's license definitely doesn't give its users freedom 0[1], as defined by FSF. [1] - The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose
- smnrchrds 7y ago
  Could you please explain why it is impossible to comply with?
  - xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
    When you are offering MongoDB as a service, article 13 requires you to release the source code of everything you're using to host your MongoDB instance under the terms of SSPL. In practice, it's impossible because you aren't the copyright holder of your kernel, firmware, webserver etc. so you can't change their license to SSPL.
    - zucker42 7y ago
      That's not impossible. You can use solely SSPL software, or software with licenses compatible with SSPL.
      - brown9-2 7y ago
        Is there a kernel or OS under the SSPL?
        zucker42 7y ago
        As far as I understand, you could redistribute BSD under the SSPL, since the BSD license doesn't prevent relicensing as long as you keep the BSD license as well. And besides, there's a difference between the practical impossibility of building a kernel and the idea of the actual impossibility of complying with the license terms. That said, I think the argument that the SSPL makes it difficult enough to use the software (due to the bookkeeping requirements of tracking every piece of software that interacts with the SSPL software) has some merit.
shakna 7y ago
> “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. Article 13 requires you make the source code of only vaguely related software available. So if you use a proprietary backup system, or someone else is doing your hosting stack, you can't use the license without breaching. Having to either own your entire stack or only using FOSS for the entire stack doesn't really fit the "freedom" part of open source.
mfer 7y ago
IANAL but... Section 13 of the mongodb license notes that all supporting software must use that license. That impacts everything in your stack. Consider kernel drivers, javascript libraries in your UI, and everything in between. Use Ansible to manage you stuff? That won't work with this license. The goal of this license isn't to get all the "Service Source Code" under the license. They know that the people who would run a service don't have that within their power. Instead, the goal of the license is to force many folks to have to purchase a separate license from the SSPL. The whole point of the license is to limit freedoms.

chrisseaton 7y ago

> can someone explain why the server side public license is not an open source license Depends on what you think 'open source' licence means. The source is literally openly available. There are just some extra restrictions on what you can do with it. The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence.

gwd 7y ago
> The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. Ref please? The FSF was certainly around pushing for "free software" long before "open source" was commonly used to refer to copyleft / permissive licenses. And the sole purpose for OSI's existence is exactly to define what is and is not "open source". In any case, it is very important to define terminology and protect its use. The goal of "open source" is certainly not to simply let people look at the source, but to let people use the source in certain ways. People have thought long and hard about exactly what the minimum standards are to consider something "free software" or "open source". You can find the core criteria for OSI here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd And the "Four Freedoms" for the Free Software Foundation here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Ref please? Both ESR and the OSI will tell you this. For example http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html > Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug. The OSI tried and failed to trademark 'open source' - because it's simply a description. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... > We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive Maybe it turned out to be a bug after all!
  - gwd 7y ago
    While ESR's link establishes precedence, it doesn't actually tell me what it means in an intelligence context. From Wikipedia [1]: > Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is data collected from publicly available sources to be used in an intelligence context. IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related. Whether or not they could trademark the term, when people in our community say "open source", they specifically mean something which matches OSI or FSF's definitions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > IOW, the "source" in "open-source context" isn't actually talking about "source" as in "source code", but "source" as in "source of information". Not really related. ESR says specifically that it's related - he says the relation is a 'feature' of the name, even.
      - pseudalopex 7y ago
        Some features start as happy accidents. ESR was the president of the OSI when it published the Open Source Definition and applied for the trademark. Justifying a weaker definition can’t be why he called it a feature.
- wmf 7y ago
  OSI hasn't been doing a good job. They're trying to turn it around but only time will tell.
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  > Ref please? Here you go: http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source
dbcurtis 7y ago
> The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. You are misinformed, at best. 1. FSF predates the term "open source", that much is true. 2. OSI coined the term "open source." And FSF has has always had issues with that. 3. OSI, on their front page, above the fold, advertises their mission as stewarding the definition of "open source". Again, FSF isn't so keen on that. In any case, if you want to come up with your own definition of "open source" you are asking to be the third person in a three-way fight. Good luck with that. Anyway, I have not looked at MongoDB's license. If it is too restrictive for the taste of this or that distro, then I guess it has achieved MongoDB's objective.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > OSI coined the term "open source." The trademark office didn't think so. And ESR said they used the existing term from the intelligence community, which I guess is why.
  - dbcurtis 7y ago
    Ok. I guess “first applied it to software” is more accurate. I was misinformed:)
danShumway 7y ago
What you're describing is source-available. If that was the only criteria for an open source license, then there would be tons of additional proprietary software we'd have to classify as open source -- Unreal Engine, for example. Regardless, the word isn't really the important part of Homebrew's decision. Whatever you want to call it, Homebrew has decided it can't include MongoDB in its repository while guaranteeing the freedoms of its users. A semantic debate over the meaning of 'open source' won't change that. That doesn't mean the semantic debate is useless, but regardless of where you fall on that debate, MongoDB's license does not guarantee freedom 0 of the FSF's definition, and that's going to effect which open source organizations are willing to distribute or build on top of MongoDB. You should expect platforms like Homebrew that care about freedom 0 to continue to abandon MongoDB.
liability 7y ago
Anybody using their personal definition of the term, rather than an OSI or FSF compatible definition and without bothering to explicitly state their personal definition upfront, is wasting everybody else's time and being a pain in the ass. Undisclosed personal definitions are an unnecessary impediment to mutual understanding.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Historically “open” was shorthand for “mostly POSIX compliant at the source level”. The term “open source” for licensing is much more recent.

xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago

Since it's literally impossible to comply with the article 13 of SSPL, MongoDB's license definitely doesn't give its users freedom 0[1], as defined by FSF. [1] - The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose

smnrchrds 7y ago
Could you please explain why it is impossible to comply with?
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
  When you are offering MongoDB as a service, article 13 requires you to release the source code of everything you're using to host your MongoDB instance under the terms of SSPL. In practice, it's impossible because you aren't the copyright holder of your kernel, firmware, webserver etc. so you can't change their license to SSPL.
  - zucker42 7y ago
    That's not impossible. You can use solely SSPL software, or software with licenses compatible with SSPL.
    - brown9-2 7y ago
      Is there a kernel or OS under the SSPL?
      - zucker42 7y ago
        As far as I understand, you could redistribute BSD under the SSPL, since the BSD license doesn't prevent relicensing as long as you keep the BSD license as well. And besides, there's a difference between the practical impossibility of building a kernel and the idea of the actual impossibility of complying with the license terms. That said, I think the argument that the SSPL makes it difficult enough to use the software (due to the bookkeeping requirements of tracking every piece of software that interacts with the SSPL software) has some merit.

shakna 7y ago

> “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. Article 13 requires you make the source code of only vaguely related software available. So if you use a proprietary backup system, or someone else is doing your hosting stack, you can't use the license without breaching. Having to either own your entire stack or only using FOSS for the entire stack doesn't really fit the "freedom" part of open source.

mfer 7y ago

IANAL but... Section 13 of the mongodb license notes that all supporting software must use that license. That impacts everything in your stack. Consider kernel drivers, javascript libraries in your UI, and everything in between. Use Ansible to manage you stuff? That won't work with this license. The goal of this license isn't to get all the "Service Source Code" under the license. They know that the people who would run a service don't have that within their power. Instead, the goal of the license is to force many folks to have to purchase a separate license from the SSPL. The whole point of the license is to limit freedoms.