6 ms·

I'm astonished at all the comments that vilify MongoDB Inc and then talk about moving to AWS's MongoDB clone. What sort of twisted world are we living in where

I'm astonished at all the comments that vilify MongoDB Inc and then talk about moving to AWS's MongoDB clone. What sort of twisted world are we living in where a company makes a service, tries to sell the service, and then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale? Cloud providers have been able to stand on the shoulders of giants, profiting immensely from millions of lines of open source code while giving little of it back, and we seem to be largely fine with this. Will we be fine depending on their services when the cloud providers become the new Oracle, free to raise prices extravagantly when we have no other choice? If MongoDB Inc can't compete in the enterprise cloud market simply because they are not AWS (as mentioned by threeseed), what should their business model be? Licensing to cloud providers would have been ideal, but the response from AWS in this case wasn't encouraging. By boycotting MongoDB in this case are we telling future innovators that their work will simply be stolen and resold for profit if it gets popular? That scares me a lot more than some project changing their license.

kentrado 7y ago
I have no pity for MongoDB, they chose to license their stuff open source. Which means they should have no problem with people profiting from their work, that's the spirit of FOSS. Of course, this is just one of the many so called "open source" companies that chose open source because they thought it would get them more users but in reality don't care much about FOSS.
bad_user 7y ago
We live in the world where we can see a bait and switch for what it is. MongoDB was advertised as being Open Source and Free Software, distributed under an OSI-compliant and FSF-compliant license. Now they are trying to eat their cake and have it too. > "then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale?" Because that's not what open source is about. Open source is about contributing to the commons, such that your competitors can make a profit from your work. If your competitors aren't able to do that, then the software is not open source. Period. And in this case, we should point out that MongoDB Inc by owning the copyright doesn't have to play by the same rules, they aren't beholden to the same rules as everyone else. > "If MongoDB Inc can't compete in the enterprise cloud market simply because they are not AWS (as mentioned by threeseed), what should their business model be?" Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out. But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, like lock in, etc. So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version when it was open source.
- nevi-me 7y ago
  > So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version where it was open source. To what end? Why should we use a fork that's supported by a few people when we can still use the Community Edition that's from the horse's mouth? The idea of forking things for the fun of it actually perpetuates the problem that we already have with OSS. We want to get things for free, use them to make money, but still expect support for new features and bug fixes. This is worse when someone does this in their 'free time'. Let's discuss the merits of forking from when it was open source. Percona has a fork, or is it not fit for purpose as they also adopted the SSPL thing? Wait, how has a fork of MongoDB also adopted MongoDB's evil license? How are they able to take contributions from MongoDB and package them under the same license? Do they share the source code internally, or do they upstream changes that are in the open? > Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out. Isn't restricting Amazon and others from profiting from their efforts part of figuring out this business model? > But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, lock in, etc. Did MongoDB sell you their product as open-source? Which specific product? Was it the Community database, or the Enterprise one? Your argument lacks substance, because you're responding to someone who's asking why people are moving to another closed source product, one whose source code you can't even inspect.
  - SergeAx 7y ago
    The idea of free software is that user can (and have the right to) modify it in any way one wants. If I found a bug in free software, I can fix it by myself or wait for someone else to fix it, or pay someone to make a fix. That's the way it works. (edit: typo)
    - nevi-me 7y ago
      But what's the difference between open source, free, and "source available" for inspection?
tannhaeuser 7y ago
> What sort of twisted world are we living in? One in which OSI obviously is paid by cloud vendors to denounce alternative licenses, lobbies for developers to be treated like kattle open for abuse, yet portrays themselves as representing developers, and bogusly claims ownership of the term "Open Source", contributing to monopolization and the weaponization of developer's work for surveillance a la Android.
- filmor 7y ago
  The OSI has a clear definition for what they deem "Open Source" that hasn't changed since it was written down '98, based on the Debian project's Free Software guidelines. This was all long before cloud vendors could have payed them for anything. And they have, as far as I know, a very non-bogus claim on the term as they coined it to distinguish their (less strict) definition from FSF's "Free Software" term.
  - tannhaeuser 7y ago
    No they don't: http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source
grumpydba 7y ago
> I'm astonished at all the comments that vilify MongoDB Inc and then talk about moving to AWS's MongoDB clone. What sort of twisted world are we living in where a company makes a service, tries to sell the service, and then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale? The bait and switch strategy is deceptive. It's aim is to milk customers to give some money back the the VCs. But this license minefield is user-hostile. Users don't like companies exhibiting hostile behavior towards them. Simple.
- statictype 7y ago
  It's not really a bait and switch. They didn't use an Open Source license with the intention of getting popular and then pulling the rug out from underneath users. They tried to make their money by offering their tech as a service and found that they couldn't compete against the resources of large cloud providers who were happily profiting off of their (and the community's) hard work.
  - grumpydba 7y ago
    > They tried to make their money by offering their tech as a service and found that they couldn't compete against the resources of large cloud providers who were happily profiting off of their (and the community's) hard work. And now the community's hard work is licensed under a new and restrictive license which, due to legal constraints, cannot be used in entreprise setups.
    - timfrietas 7y ago
      And now the community's hard work is licensed under a new and restrictive license which, due to legal constraints, cannot be used in entreprise setups. Sure it can. It is fairly narrow in that it targets reselling it as-a-service. Many large companies are still running MongoDB for enterprise workloads, the SSPL does not change that.
      - grumpydba 7y ago
radiator 7y ago
I am not sure that part is 100% accurate: "where a company makes a service". Are you referring to MongoDB Inc making MongoDB?
- statictype 7y ago
  I think the parent is referring to MongoDB's hosted db-as-a-service offering. They make their money from that and they are being beaten by large cloud providers also offering the same thing at less cost.
nabdab 7y ago
> lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale? I feel like if just cannot be repeated enough: You control which license your software is supplied under! If you want to create open source software, you have to live by that decision and follow the license. You can’t slap an open license on the software and complain when people “abuse” the fact that it’s open.
PeterZaitsev 7y ago
I think you need to consider the followings - There is nothing wrong with Proprietary software. MongoDB is vilified because they built community on the assumption what this software will be Open Source. Because of this many spend a lot of their own time helping to promote MongoDB and one day MongoDB changed their license. Amazon's DocumentDB makes no Open Source promises - Your competitors can copy your software is one of the downsides of having your software Open Source. You however may get much better adoption curve in return. - This is not MongoDB boycott. If repository promises to its users it will only contain Open Source software and MongoDB is not any more it naturally has to be removed. Keeping it will mean breaking promise to repository users - MongoDB can't compete with AWS is quite far fetched statement. Competing with AWS could possibly slowed MongoDB growth of course.

kentrado 7y ago

I have no pity for MongoDB, they chose to license their stuff open source. Which means they should have no problem with people profiting from their work, that's the spirit of FOSS. Of course, this is just one of the many so called "open source" companies that chose open source because they thought it would get them more users but in reality don't care much about FOSS.

bad_user 7y ago

We live in the world where we can see a bait and switch for what it is. MongoDB was advertised as being Open Source and Free Software, distributed under an OSI-compliant and FSF-compliant license. Now they are trying to eat their cake and have it too. > "then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale?" Because that's not what open source is about. Open source is about contributing to the commons, such that your competitors can make a profit from your work. If your competitors aren't able to do that, then the software is not open source. Period. And in this case, we should point out that MongoDB Inc by owning the copyright doesn't have to play by the same rules, they aren't beholden to the same rules as everyone else. > "If MongoDB Inc can't compete in the enterprise cloud market simply because they are not AWS (as mentioned by threeseed), what should their business model be?" Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out. But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, like lock in, etc. So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version when it was open source.

nevi-me 7y ago
> So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version where it was open source. To what end? Why should we use a fork that's supported by a few people when we can still use the Community Edition that's from the horse's mouth? The idea of forking things for the fun of it actually perpetuates the problem that we already have with OSS. We want to get things for free, use them to make money, but still expect support for new features and bug fixes. This is worse when someone does this in their 'free time'. Let's discuss the merits of forking from when it was open source. Percona has a fork, or is it not fit for purpose as they also adopted the SSPL thing? Wait, how has a fork of MongoDB also adopted MongoDB's evil license? How are they able to take contributions from MongoDB and package them under the same license? Do they share the source code internally, or do they upstream changes that are in the open? > Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out. Isn't restricting Amazon and others from profiting from their efforts part of figuring out this business model? > But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, lock in, etc. Did MongoDB sell you their product as open-source? Which specific product? Was it the Community database, or the Enterprise one? Your argument lacks substance, because you're responding to someone who's asking why people are moving to another closed source product, one whose source code you can't even inspect.
- SergeAx 7y ago
  The idea of free software is that user can (and have the right to) modify it in any way one wants. If I found a bug in free software, I can fix it by myself or wait for someone else to fix it, or pay someone to make a fix. That's the way it works. (edit: typo)
  - nevi-me 7y ago
    But what's the difference between open source, free, and "source available" for inspection?

tannhaeuser 7y ago

> What sort of twisted world are we living in? One in which OSI obviously is paid by cloud vendors to denounce alternative licenses, lobbies for developers to be treated like kattle open for abuse, yet portrays themselves as representing developers, and bogusly claims ownership of the term "Open Source", contributing to monopolization and the weaponization of developer's work for surveillance a la Android.

filmor 7y ago
The OSI has a clear definition for what they deem "Open Source" that hasn't changed since it was written down '98, based on the Debian project's Free Software guidelines. This was all long before cloud vendors could have payed them for anything. And they have, as far as I know, a very non-bogus claim on the term as they coined it to distinguish their (less strict) definition from FSF's "Free Software" term.
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  No they don't: http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source

grumpydba 7y ago

> I'm astonished at all the comments that vilify MongoDB Inc and then talk about moving to AWS's MongoDB clone. What sort of twisted world are we living in where a company makes a service, tries to sell the service, and then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale? The bait and switch strategy is deceptive. It's aim is to milk customers to give some money back the the VCs. But this license minefield is user-hostile. Users don't like companies exhibiting hostile behavior towards them. Simple.

statictype 7y ago
It's not really a bait and switch. They didn't use an Open Source license with the intention of getting popular and then pulling the rug out from underneath users. They tried to make their money by offering their tech as a service and found that they couldn't compete against the resources of large cloud providers who were happily profiting off of their (and the community's) hard work.
- grumpydba 7y ago
  > They tried to make their money by offering their tech as a service and found that they couldn't compete against the resources of large cloud providers who were happily profiting off of their (and the community's) hard work. And now the community's hard work is licensed under a new and restrictive license which, due to legal constraints, cannot be used in entreprise setups.
  - timfrietas 7y ago
    And now the community's hard work is licensed under a new and restrictive license which, due to legal constraints, cannot be used in entreprise setups. Sure it can. It is fairly narrow in that it targets reselling it as-a-service. Many large companies are still running MongoDB for enterprise workloads, the SSPL does not change that.
    - grumpydba 7y ago

radiator 7y ago

I am not sure that part is 100% accurate: "where a company makes a service". Are you referring to MongoDB Inc making MongoDB?

statictype 7y ago
I think the parent is referring to MongoDB's hosted db-as-a-service offering. They make their money from that and they are being beaten by large cloud providers also offering the same thing at less cost.

nabdab 7y ago

> lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale? I feel like if just cannot be repeated enough: You control which license your software is supplied under! If you want to create open source software, you have to live by that decision and follow the license. You can’t slap an open license on the software and complain when people “abuse” the fact that it’s open.

PeterZaitsev 7y ago

I think you need to consider the followings - There is nothing wrong with Proprietary software. MongoDB is vilified because they built community on the assumption what this software will be Open Source. Because of this many spend a lot of their own time helping to promote MongoDB and one day MongoDB changed their license. Amazon's DocumentDB makes no Open Source promises - Your competitors can copy your software is one of the downsides of having your software Open Source. You however may get much better adoption curve in return. - This is not MongoDB boycott. If repository promises to its users it will only contain Open Source software and MongoDB is not any more it naturally has to be removed. Keeping it will mean breaking promise to repository users - MongoDB can't compete with AWS is quite far fetched statement. Competing with AWS could possibly slowed MongoDB growth of course.