5 ms·

I have mixed feelings about this server side license stuff that mongo db started. Imagine where the internet would be today if the creators of apache and mysql

I have mixed feelings about this server side license stuff that mongo db started. Imagine where the internet would be today if the creators of apache and mysql had tried to prevent shared hosting providers in the early days of the web from using their software

brainless 6y ago
The time when Apache or MySQL started out was very different. Imagine where the internet would be if cloud computing itself didn't take off. Do you remember a time when there were hundreds of hosting providers? Do you remember WebHostingTalk where admins would go to check hosting offers from suppliers around the world? The monopolies finished that era. So I don't think that software companies trying to adapt now can be seen through the lens of what was 15 years ago.
- paxys 6y ago
  There are more hosting providers today than in the era you are talking about. AWS has a "monopoly" simply because large companies are using it, and back in the day those companies would have run their own datacenters not used a shared PHP host. For a personal site or startup you have a thousand other options.
  - darkwater 6y ago
    I'm not even that sure this is true in absolute numbers, but I'm pretty sure it is not in relative figures. There are waaaay more customer/businesses on the Internet today than there were 15 years ago and not that many providers more.
    - carlhjerpe 6y ago
      Do you have a source for the data that there isn't significantly more hosting providers today? The ease of setting up Plesk or CPanel to become a shared hosting provider today is incredible, essentially 0 maintenance so I doubt your statement holds true, considering how many more people are on the Internet today compared to 15 years ago.
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    I wouldn't say AWS has a monopoly. There are tons of providers ranging from Digital Ocean to Google Cloud. AWS is just the largest because they've been around the longest. They're so deeply entrenched in Cloud that most people automatically think of them. I think things such as Netflix talking about their engineering and how they use AWS was a major boost at the start. Now a days people are literally studying to become AWS certified. We even have a AWS specialised working at my company. AWS and other cloud providers are also very smart in locking in start ups by offering them thousands upon thousands of free credit. Build your MVP on there and then end up vendor locked in but think it's a good thing. I heard a tidbit that I don't know if it's true or not but I would like to think it is. AWS has become so expensive for some companies that they're starting to migrate back to their own datacentres.
  - brainless 6y ago
    I think you need to get a reality check. I have worked as an early engineer to 12 or more startups in the last 15 years and am very active in communities ranging from HN, IndieHackers, OnDeck or a dozen others. I have not come across a single founder in the last 5-6 years who does not start with AWS credits or is not craving for them. AWS is nothing but monopoly and they have utilized access to their cash to buy early customers. The same goes for Google and MS. The smaller hosting providers that you believe exist actually are stuck with whatever customers they used to have or a chance new WordPress blog.
    - carlhjerpe 6y ago
      Everything doesn't run on AWS. In Europe where a company might only sell to one country, like Sweden where I live for example many won't see the traffic required to scale beyond a single box, those same smaller companies might also not want to pay with their kidneys to host that one VM. Cloudflare is making this possible, so for smaller businesses and sites one could argue that Cloudflare is the real monopoly (entirely different markets). Now companies like Shopify is enabling people to run a shop without any ops for peanuts. Or smaller SMB it environments, we run a small datacenter at my company running VMware software to run our customers domain controllers, erps, fileservers and such, though this is decreasing, we used to run Exchange too, but migrated every customer to Office365 because it's cheaper than on-premise licensing, and we have 0 ops. The fact that we're local means we can offer dark fibre to many customer sites, giving them 0ms latency to us, making even the chattiest shit system run like things were on their premises. I guess we're "computing at edge" :p Not saying you're wrong that AWS is a cloud monopoly, but everyone isn't purchasing in the cloud market (the majority of the worlds money doesn't flow through startups going global). And there's also Azure which is growing at an incredible rate challenging AWS at migrating legacy workloads to the cloud.
catern 6y ago
The server side license stuff doesn't prevent shared hosting providers from using software. It just requires hosting providers to open source their infrastructure. I think the internet would be even better today, if shared hosting providers had been sharing infrastructure technology since 25 years ago.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  I think that's missing the forest for the trees. The license is designed to prevent hosting providers from selling the software as a service to their customers. The requirement to open source their entire infrastructure and operations is just a means to do that.
  - antpls 6y ago
    Technically it doesn't just prevent from selling SaaS. It prevents from selling SaaS without having the consent of the open source project first, which means negotiating a deal.
  - pas 6y ago
    The value in AWS is not the software. (What I heard about it a few years ago it's very explicitly not the cobbled together software.) It's the whole enterprise, the structure, the teams, the operations staff.
- zokier 6y ago
  I don't think sspl is realistic to be able to comply with. This clause is ridiculously wide: > Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service All programs you use Every single one of them. There is literally no limit on what sources you would need to publish. You don't need to think very long to realize how impossible that is.
  - waisbrot 6y ago
    I mean... there's very obviously a limit, right? You don't use an infinite number of programs. And it's not "all programs you use", it's "all programs that you use to make the Program ... available as a service". You don't need to provide the code for Microsoft Solitare, but you do need to provide the code for Apache httpd and your Linux distro. Which is pretty easy to do!
joking 6y ago
Imagine where elastic would be, as the whole success of elastic is based on a apache licensed project (lucene).
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  In the same place as it would require elastic’s changes to Lucerne to be made open source also?
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Depends on the license, but if it was SSPL then Elastic wouldn't be able to run their hosted service without open-sourcing every bit of it, including all of the security, infrastructure monitoring, and authentication that is the backend of their business model. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26784552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26784552
asien 6y ago
> Imagine where the internet would be today if the creators of apache and mysql had tried to prevent shared hosting PHP + MySQL was the foundation of the Internet not so long ago , Wordpress is stil the backbone of lots of platform. With SS License definitely this would not have been possible.
- pas 6y ago
  Why? Dockerized versions of countless server-side software are there for free. In a lot of cases the value is that someone maintains it and operates it for you.
carlhjerpe 6y ago
Yes, but would we have TimescaleDB, CockroachDB, ElasticSearch, Docker (containers at all) and projects like these if there wasn't any money at the table? Not saying you're wrong, but it's a multidimensional problem. One could argue AWS is nothing like shared hosting providers(compare scale), and a webserver is essentially "stateless" which means easier to build than say... A database holding sensitive information that doesn't break. I assume this is why postgres HA and horizontal scaling still really isn't a thing, while CockroachDB funded by VC "solved" this problem. I think it's fair to let companies monetize on the service they built, while allowing people to run it on their own if they can. A problem here though is that the companies incentives mismatch the opensource project they're eunning. CockroachDB enterprise having killer features that the opensource version doesn't have and that noone will be able to PR because the company will reject it. TimescaleDB went ahead and opensourced all their features, aligning their incentives with the project, but I don't know of anyone else who has done this.

brainless 6y ago

The time when Apache or MySQL started out was very different. Imagine where the internet would be if cloud computing itself didn't take off. Do you remember a time when there were hundreds of hosting providers? Do you remember WebHostingTalk where admins would go to check hosting offers from suppliers around the world? The monopolies finished that era. So I don't think that software companies trying to adapt now can be seen through the lens of what was 15 years ago.

paxys 6y ago
There are more hosting providers today than in the era you are talking about. AWS has a "monopoly" simply because large companies are using it, and back in the day those companies would have run their own datacenters not used a shared PHP host. For a personal site or startup you have a thousand other options.
- darkwater 6y ago
  I'm not even that sure this is true in absolute numbers, but I'm pretty sure it is not in relative figures. There are waaaay more customer/businesses on the Internet today than there were 15 years ago and not that many providers more.
  - carlhjerpe 6y ago
    Do you have a source for the data that there isn't significantly more hosting providers today? The ease of setting up Plesk or CPanel to become a shared hosting provider today is incredible, essentially 0 maintenance so I doubt your statement holds true, considering how many more people are on the Internet today compared to 15 years ago.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  I wouldn't say AWS has a monopoly. There are tons of providers ranging from Digital Ocean to Google Cloud. AWS is just the largest because they've been around the longest. They're so deeply entrenched in Cloud that most people automatically think of them. I think things such as Netflix talking about their engineering and how they use AWS was a major boost at the start. Now a days people are literally studying to become AWS certified. We even have a AWS specialised working at my company. AWS and other cloud providers are also very smart in locking in start ups by offering them thousands upon thousands of free credit. Build your MVP on there and then end up vendor locked in but think it's a good thing. I heard a tidbit that I don't know if it's true or not but I would like to think it is. AWS has become so expensive for some companies that they're starting to migrate back to their own datacentres.
- brainless 6y ago
  I think you need to get a reality check. I have worked as an early engineer to 12 or more startups in the last 15 years and am very active in communities ranging from HN, IndieHackers, OnDeck or a dozen others. I have not come across a single founder in the last 5-6 years who does not start with AWS credits or is not craving for them. AWS is nothing but monopoly and they have utilized access to their cash to buy early customers. The same goes for Google and MS. The smaller hosting providers that you believe exist actually are stuck with whatever customers they used to have or a chance new WordPress blog.
  - carlhjerpe 6y ago
    Everything doesn't run on AWS. In Europe where a company might only sell to one country, like Sweden where I live for example many won't see the traffic required to scale beyond a single box, those same smaller companies might also not want to pay with their kidneys to host that one VM. Cloudflare is making this possible, so for smaller businesses and sites one could argue that Cloudflare is the real monopoly (entirely different markets). Now companies like Shopify is enabling people to run a shop without any ops for peanuts. Or smaller SMB it environments, we run a small datacenter at my company running VMware software to run our customers domain controllers, erps, fileservers and such, though this is decreasing, we used to run Exchange too, but migrated every customer to Office365 because it's cheaper than on-premise licensing, and we have 0 ops. The fact that we're local means we can offer dark fibre to many customer sites, giving them 0ms latency to us, making even the chattiest shit system run like things were on their premises. I guess we're "computing at edge" :p Not saying you're wrong that AWS is a cloud monopoly, but everyone isn't purchasing in the cloud market (the majority of the worlds money doesn't flow through startups going global). And there's also Azure which is growing at an incredible rate challenging AWS at migrating legacy workloads to the cloud.

catern 6y ago

The server side license stuff doesn't prevent shared hosting providers from using software. It just requires hosting providers to open source their infrastructure. I think the internet would be even better today, if shared hosting providers had been sharing infrastructure technology since 25 years ago.

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
I think that's missing the forest for the trees. The license is designed to prevent hosting providers from selling the software as a service to their customers. The requirement to open source their entire infrastructure and operations is just a means to do that.
- antpls 6y ago
  Technically it doesn't just prevent from selling SaaS. It prevents from selling SaaS without having the consent of the open source project first, which means negotiating a deal.
- pas 6y ago
  The value in AWS is not the software. (What I heard about it a few years ago it's very explicitly not the cobbled together software.) It's the whole enterprise, the structure, the teams, the operations staff.
zokier 6y ago
I don't think sspl is realistic to be able to comply with. This clause is ridiculously wide: > Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service All programs you use Every single one of them. There is literally no limit on what sources you would need to publish. You don't need to think very long to realize how impossible that is.
- waisbrot 6y ago
  I mean... there's very obviously a limit, right? You don't use an infinite number of programs. And it's not "all programs you use", it's "all programs that you use to make the Program ... available as a service". You don't need to provide the code for Microsoft Solitare, but you do need to provide the code for Apache httpd and your Linux distro. Which is pretty easy to do!

joking 6y ago

Imagine where elastic would be, as the whole success of elastic is based on a apache licensed project (lucene).

madeofpalk 6y ago
In the same place as it would require elastic’s changes to Lucerne to be made open source also?
- judge2020 6y ago
  Depends on the license, but if it was SSPL then Elastic wouldn't be able to run their hosted service without open-sourcing every bit of it, including all of the security, infrastructure monitoring, and authentication that is the backend of their business model. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26784552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26784552

asien 6y ago

> Imagine where the internet would be today if the creators of apache and mysql had tried to prevent shared hosting PHP + MySQL was the foundation of the Internet not so long ago , Wordpress is stil the backbone of lots of platform. With SS License definitely this would not have been possible.

pas 6y ago
Why? Dockerized versions of countless server-side software are there for free. In a lot of cases the value is that someone maintains it and operates it for you.

carlhjerpe 6y ago

Yes, but would we have TimescaleDB, CockroachDB, ElasticSearch, Docker (containers at all) and projects like these if there wasn't any money at the table? Not saying you're wrong, but it's a multidimensional problem. One could argue AWS is nothing like shared hosting providers(compare scale), and a webserver is essentially "stateless" which means easier to build than say... A database holding sensitive information that doesn't break. I assume this is why postgres HA and horizontal scaling still really isn't a thing, while CockroachDB funded by VC "solved" this problem. I think it's fair to let companies monetize on the service they built, while allowing people to run it on their own if they can. A problem here though is that the companies incentives mismatch the opensource project they're eunning. CockroachDB enterprise having killer features that the opensource version doesn't have and that noone will be able to PR because the company will reject it. TimescaleDB went ahead and opensourced all their features, aligning their incentives with the project, but I don't know of anyone else who has done this.