5 ms·

I don't think your baker metaphor holds up though, because a major component of open source software is that people outside of the companies support it. A bett

by tedivm 7y ago

I don't think your baker metaphor holds up though, because a major component of open source software is that people outside of the companies support it. A better metaphor would be if the bakery had started by using volunteers to create all the recipes, and then the baker decided that people could only use those recipes if they followed his terms so that the baker could stop other bakeries from competing. This obviously upsets the people who contributed to the recipes thinking they would be open for anyone to use. Mongo started as an open source project, used that openness to build community (and indeed their product itself), and then pulled the rug out from under everyone to gain a competitive advantage.

trpc 7y ago
If MongoDB started as a community OSS then I am wrong in this case, but about other open-source companies companies that want to protect their rights in not getting exploited by other for-profit entities that might use the product and profit from it? even AGPL guaranties nothing in most real-world cases.
- tedivm 7y ago
  Well here's the question- how are they getting exploited? If I release code for people to use for free, and people use it, where's the exploitation? I can understand why some people would not choose to give their code away for free, but trying to be both open source while having the benefits of being closed source seems like they are trying to exploit the open source community.
  - trpc 7y ago
    this is totally beyond me. So a company making a profit from a product made by another company by just hosting it is not exploitation? Does this happen in any industry? A company that makes product for free and another takes it as is and sells it is not an exploitation?
    - theamk 7y ago
      People sell Linux laptops, which has Ubuntu “as is”. This is not generally an exploitation.
      - DangitBobby 7y ago
        That behavior also falls directly in line with Canonical's intended distribution of Ubuntu and the business model that surrounds it. Not quite apples to apples.
    - tedivm 7y ago
      It isn't exploitation because it is literally part of the definition of open source that other people can use and profit off of the work. Linux has made more than one company rich- do we think Red Hat is exploiting Linux? It's also unfair to pretend that companies who are setting up managed services are universally not contributing back- by open sourcing their code MongoDB has been able to benefit off of the issues that these other companies have found, often without having to do more than review a pull request. There are benefits of open sourcing your code, just as their are downsides. Companies like MongoDB can't have their cake and eat it to- by closing their source code like they have they are exploiting the open source community. They spent years taking the benefits of the community, with the community having given them these benefits with the assumption that the community would be able to benefit from the openness of their code. MongoDB deciding to no longer offer a true open source option for their software is exploitative and a slap in the face to every open source developer.
      - DangitBobby 7y ago
        If someone were promoting a cause--say a business just trying to get the word out there about their new offering--were sitting at a table with a box that said "free mugs", would you consider it exploitative to take the entire box of free mugs, scrub off the company's logo, and begin selling them to people? Would you at least say that it's kind of scummy, or at the very least ethically questionable? Being technically within the bounds of your agreement and being exploitative are not even close to mutually exclusive. >It's also unfair to pretend that companies who are setting up managed services are universally not contributing back- by open sourcing their code MongoDB has been able to benefit off of the issues that these other companies have found, often without having to do more than review a pull request. It's also unfair to pretend that you know for certain that the benefit of this exchange was significantly in favor of MongoDB compared to the detriment they experienced from having their work repurposed. It is not a good defense of OSS to say that this is working as intended.

by tedivm 7y ago

trpc 7y ago

If MongoDB started as a community OSS then I am wrong in this case, but about other open-source companies companies that want to protect their rights in not getting exploited by other for-profit entities that might use the product and profit from it? even AGPL guaranties nothing in most real-world cases.

tedivm 7y ago
Well here's the question- how are they getting exploited? If I release code for people to use for free, and people use it, where's the exploitation? I can understand why some people would not choose to give their code away for free, but trying to be both open source while having the benefits of being closed source seems like they are trying to exploit the open source community.
- trpc 7y ago
  this is totally beyond me. So a company making a profit from a product made by another company by just hosting it is not exploitation? Does this happen in any industry? A company that makes product for free and another takes it as is and sells it is not an exploitation?
  - theamk 7y ago
    People sell Linux laptops, which has Ubuntu “as is”. This is not generally an exploitation.
    - DangitBobby 7y ago
      That behavior also falls directly in line with Canonical's intended distribution of Ubuntu and the business model that surrounds it. Not quite apples to apples.
  - tedivm 7y ago
    It isn't exploitation because it is literally part of the definition of open source that other people can use and profit off of the work. Linux has made more than one company rich- do we think Red Hat is exploiting Linux? It's also unfair to pretend that companies who are setting up managed services are universally not contributing back- by open sourcing their code MongoDB has been able to benefit off of the issues that these other companies have found, often without having to do more than review a pull request. There are benefits of open sourcing your code, just as their are downsides. Companies like MongoDB can't have their cake and eat it to- by closing their source code like they have they are exploiting the open source community. They spent years taking the benefits of the community, with the community having given them these benefits with the assumption that the community would be able to benefit from the openness of their code. MongoDB deciding to no longer offer a true open source option for their software is exploitative and a slap in the face to every open source developer.
    - DangitBobby 7y ago
      If someone were promoting a cause--say a business just trying to get the word out there about their new offering--were sitting at a table with a box that said "free mugs", would you consider it exploitative to take the entire box of free mugs, scrub off the company's logo, and begin selling them to people? Would you at least say that it's kind of scummy, or at the very least ethically questionable? Being technically within the bounds of your agreement and being exploitative are not even close to mutually exclusive. >It's also unfair to pretend that companies who are setting up managed services are universally not contributing back- by open sourcing their code MongoDB has been able to benefit off of the issues that these other companies have found, often without having to do more than review a pull request. It's also unfair to pretend that you know for certain that the benefit of this exchange was significantly in favor of MongoDB compared to the detriment they experienced from having their work repurposed. It is not a good defense of OSS to say that this is working as intended.