3 ms·
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, espe
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.