4 ms·

afaik the user doesn't pay for MongoDB, you can use it freely, read the code, modify; if I understand correctly SSPL is basically AGPL/GPL but with clause that

by trpc 7y ago

afaik the user doesn't pay for MongoDB, you can use it freely, read the code, modify; if I understand correctly SSPL is basically AGPL/GPL but with clause that cloud vendors that want to use this product to provide a SaaS version must pay to the maker. I don't think this is any unfair esepcially if this project was made from scratch by the maker and not a fork off another OSS project.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
Cloud vendors are "users", too. I'm not saying it's fair or unfair, just that it's not free. MongoDB is of course within their rights to charge to use their software, but they're not somehow being exploited by those who profit from it without paying — after they offered it for free! — when they themselves profit off the labor of the same people without compensating them. Put another way: Amazon is a corporate member of the Linux Foundation. Why is it okay for MongoDB to profit off Amazon's labor without paying, but not vice versa?
- trpc 7y ago
  Okay, what if I want to offer total freedom to users but not for other competing companies? There is no single license that can protect a company that creates a FOSS product. It's just ridiculous that a company creates a product for free and another uses it as is and sells it for profit by just "hosting" it. Esepcially for the case of a database, the only way to make money is by having managed service or licesning it to cloud vendors. I can't think of any other way of monetizing such a product For the case of Amazon sponsoring linux, it's in the very interest of Amazon that Linux stays alive and active because all their billions from AWS comes by running linux kernel as infrastructure, not to mention having the advantage to influence the components being added and maintained that result directly in more profit for them. Linux foundation is totally different in its structure and goals from a for-profit company like Mongo.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    > Esepcially for the case of a database, the only way to make money is by having managed service or licesning it to cloud vendors. I can't think of any other way of monetizing such a product What about charging all their users? It's worked out fine for Oracle. The current licensing scheme is fine, too. Again: no one has any issue with Mongo charging their users! It's just not open source software. > For the case of Amazon sponsoring linux, it's because the very interest of Amazon that Linux stays alive and active because all their billions from AWS comes by running linux kernel as infrastructure, not to mention having the advantage to influence the components being added and maintained that result directly in more profit for them. The question remains, though: why is it acceptable for Mongo to profit off Amazon's open-source contributions without compensating them (or at least donating to the projects themselves), but not vice versa? > Linux foundation is totally different in its structure and goals from a for-profit company like Mongo. I don't understand your point here. Mongo isn't owed anything extra just because they've decided to structure themselves as a for-profit company.

by trpc 7y ago

jakelazaroff 7y ago

Cloud vendors are "users", too. I'm not saying it's fair or unfair, just that it's not free. MongoDB is of course within their rights to charge to use their software, but they're not somehow being exploited by those who profit from it without paying — after they offered it for free! — when they themselves profit off the labor of the same people without compensating them. Put another way: Amazon is a corporate member of the Linux Foundation. Why is it okay for MongoDB to profit off Amazon's labor without paying, but not vice versa?

trpc 7y ago
Okay, what if I want to offer total freedom to users but not for other competing companies? There is no single license that can protect a company that creates a FOSS product. It's just ridiculous that a company creates a product for free and another uses it as is and sells it for profit by just "hosting" it. Esepcially for the case of a database, the only way to make money is by having managed service or licesning it to cloud vendors. I can't think of any other way of monetizing such a product For the case of Amazon sponsoring linux, it's in the very interest of Amazon that Linux stays alive and active because all their billions from AWS comes by running linux kernel as infrastructure, not to mention having the advantage to influence the components being added and maintained that result directly in more profit for them. Linux foundation is totally different in its structure and goals from a for-profit company like Mongo.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  > Esepcially for the case of a database, the only way to make money is by having managed service or licesning it to cloud vendors. I can't think of any other way of monetizing such a product What about charging all their users? It's worked out fine for Oracle. The current licensing scheme is fine, too. Again: no one has any issue with Mongo charging their users! It's just not open source software. > For the case of Amazon sponsoring linux, it's because the very interest of Amazon that Linux stays alive and active because all their billions from AWS comes by running linux kernel as infrastructure, not to mention having the advantage to influence the components being added and maintained that result directly in more profit for them. The question remains, though: why is it acceptable for Mongo to profit off Amazon's open-source contributions without compensating them (or at least donating to the projects themselves), but not vice versa? > Linux foundation is totally different in its structure and goals from a for-profit company like Mongo. I don't understand your point here. Mongo isn't owed anything extra just because they've decided to structure themselves as a for-profit company.