3 ms·

I understand the removal of non-OSS-compliant software from core distributions, and see little controversy in that, as it's the risk of changing a license. Wha

I understand the removal of non-OSS-compliant software from core distributions, and see little controversy in that, as it's the risk of changing a license. What I don't understand is the many people who are talking about AWS' replacement being a solution for people migrating from MongoDB. From the comments, it seems: - it's expensive to use. Someone spent $15 for 2KB data over 3 days [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20862196 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20862196] - it's only compatible with MongoDB 3.4, which seems not to be enough for some people. What are the reasons to move to AWS' very offering that MongoDB (and others) are trying to prevent from making money off their investment? Is it a feeling of 'betrayal' that the license has now changed? MongoDB has had an attitude that the source for the community product is available, but that they mostly develop their product using their core team. [https://www.techrepublic.com/article/mongodb-ceo-tells-hard-truths-about-commercial-open-source/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/mongodb-ceo-tells-hard-...] So, did the change to their Server License thing result in people having to pay for the Community Edition? Is the move from MongoDB because it's incompatible with one's data needs (in which case, why didn't one do enough research)? Why move to AWS' offering instead of 'supporting' these companies? If AWS and Azure thought to create MongoDB Compatible abstraction layers, then surely they saw something useful/good in parts of the database? Then why punish the companies that innovated in creating these technologies? Lastly, the idea that companies will be fully-OSS and make money from unicorn dust fails once those holding these opinions are on the driver's seat. How many foundations do you donate to, that support the OSS that you use? The current trend of continuing to want things for free from companies, but being willing to spend an extra fee for a 'managed service' from a cloud provider will hurt a lot of otherwise innovative companies in the coming decade.

truth_seeker 7y ago
Ditto
DangitBobby 7y ago
If people accept that what MongoDB did with its license is acceptable because the OSS model failed for them, then the viability and future of the OSS model might come into question. People tend to come to believe something organically and then later cherry-pick facts and observations that back those beliefs up. So even if MongoDB did what it had to do, or did what would otherwise be morally defensible in the most popular moral frameworks (as I personally believe to be the case), people who have a personal or emotional stake in the future of OSS will be looking outwardly for a villain. If it failed, it must be a failure of someone who crossed OSS. MongoDB seems the only choice for a villain in that regard.
- nevi-me 7y ago
  I agree with your statement. Rationally, MongoDB's decision made sense because of the real actual threat of AWS and others offering alternatives (at various levels of baking) that seek to undermine MongoDB. If this is the path that we choose to take, we'll see more companies go back to the closed source model (which MongoDB hasn't gone in).

truth_seeker 7y ago

Ditto

DangitBobby 7y ago

If people accept that what MongoDB did with its license is acceptable because the OSS model failed for them, then the viability and future of the OSS model might come into question. People tend to come to believe something organically and then later cherry-pick facts and observations that back those beliefs up. So even if MongoDB did what it had to do, or did what would otherwise be morally defensible in the most popular moral frameworks (as I personally believe to be the case), people who have a personal or emotional stake in the future of OSS will be looking outwardly for a villain. If it failed, it must be a failure of someone who crossed OSS. MongoDB seems the only choice for a villain in that regard.

nevi-me 7y ago
I agree with your statement. Rationally, MongoDB's decision made sense because of the real actual threat of AWS and others offering alternatives (at various levels of baking) that seek to undermine MongoDB. If this is the path that we choose to take, we'll see more companies go back to the closed source model (which MongoDB hasn't gone in).