3 ms·

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought the new license is just about offering MongoDB as a service by itself. But if you're making any other sort of website

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought the new license is just about offering MongoDB as a service by itself. But if you're making any other sort of website and use MongoDB as a database, you can still install it and use it for free. If the companies got lured into using MongoDB as a service, then I understand that prices could increase and companies could be in a pickle. But if companies got lured into using MongoDB as software, I don't see how they could have a problem.

judge2020 7y ago
You're correct, the new license only prevents AWS and other cloud from running the MongoDB software itself as a managed service unless they open-source their entire platform (although, as we see with DocumentDB, they can legally implement the API without the license coming into effect). The parent comment states "their sales people started coming around and asking for insane sums of money" but I can't find any reference to this.
- CryoLogic 7y ago
  This was my understanding of the license as well. I read through the block and it very clearly suggested only selling the database as a service was not okay. Using the database as a data store should be fine. If MongoDB really is sending salespeople to make claims against companies who they convinced to use their OSS database as a data-store, than they are indeed abusing their license and no one should use their database or support their company. From what I read of the license, that shouldn't be the case though.
tedivm 7y ago
The fact that mongo was willing to screw over one set of users makes me worry they'd be willing to screw over all their users. It's a risk I wouldn't take, especially when there are so many other (arguably better) options out there.
- lolinder 7y ago
  I wouldn't choose mongo for many reasons, but this licensing change isn't one of them. It's in line with the general spirit of the GPL: if you're going to stand on the shoulders of giants, you should allow others to stand on your shoulders. The only major change to the license is in adapting to the rise of cloud services.
  - bad_user 7y ago
    The GPL is only a copyright license. The GPL DOES NOT impose restrictions on usage, where "usage" vs "distribution" gets defined by copyright law itself. That's one of GPL's biggest strengths. Also successful software packages that are GPL are GPL for everyone. You don't have a mother company that can bypass the GPL due to them owning the copyright. And when you do it's usually a scam that people can smell. You can't say about a license change that it is in the "spirit of GPL" when the mother company, MongoDB Inc, doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. So I'm sorry, but when you're talking about the "spirit of GPL", you don't know what you're talking about.
lolinder 7y ago
https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license... The FAQ for the license change very clearly indicates that your reading is what was intended. Question #4 particularly contains the complete text of the section that was altered, and it's hard to see how they could have left themselves any room to penalize regular users.

judge2020 7y ago

You're correct, the new license only prevents AWS and other cloud from running the MongoDB software itself as a managed service unless they open-source their entire platform (although, as we see with DocumentDB, they can legally implement the API without the license coming into effect). The parent comment states "their sales people started coming around and asking for insane sums of money" but I can't find any reference to this.

CryoLogic 7y ago
This was my understanding of the license as well. I read through the block and it very clearly suggested only selling the database as a service was not okay. Using the database as a data store should be fine. If MongoDB really is sending salespeople to make claims against companies who they convinced to use their OSS database as a data-store, than they are indeed abusing their license and no one should use their database or support their company. From what I read of the license, that shouldn't be the case though.

tedivm 7y ago

The fact that mongo was willing to screw over one set of users makes me worry they'd be willing to screw over all their users. It's a risk I wouldn't take, especially when there are so many other (arguably better) options out there.

lolinder 7y ago
I wouldn't choose mongo for many reasons, but this licensing change isn't one of them. It's in line with the general spirit of the GPL: if you're going to stand on the shoulders of giants, you should allow others to stand on your shoulders. The only major change to the license is in adapting to the rise of cloud services.
- bad_user 7y ago
  The GPL is only a copyright license. The GPL DOES NOT impose restrictions on usage, where "usage" vs "distribution" gets defined by copyright law itself. That's one of GPL's biggest strengths. Also successful software packages that are GPL are GPL for everyone. You don't have a mother company that can bypass the GPL due to them owning the copyright. And when you do it's usually a scam that people can smell. You can't say about a license change that it is in the "spirit of GPL" when the mother company, MongoDB Inc, doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. So I'm sorry, but when you're talking about the "spirit of GPL", you don't know what you're talking about.

lolinder 7y ago

https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license... The FAQ for the license change very clearly indicates that your reading is what was intended. Question #4 particularly contains the complete text of the section that was altered, and it's hard to see how they could have left themselves any room to penalize regular users.