4 ms·

Surprised MongoDB hasn't been mentioned yet. It's C++

• maxloh 4y ago
  It is not FOSS.
  • warrenm 4y ago
    Yes it is
    • cweagans 4y ago
      It is not. See https://opensource.org/node/1099 https://opensource.org/node/1099
      • warrenm 4y ago
        It is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License
        • cweagans 4y ago
          I don’t think you read that entire article (or even looked at the sidebar). SSPL is copyleft, but not FOSS. From that article: > In January 2021, following the re-licensing move by Elastic, OSI released a statement declaring that the SSPL does not comply with its Open Source Definition because it discriminates against specific fields of endeavor, describing it as a "fauxpen" source license. > Debian FSG compatible No > OSI approved No > GPL compatible No
          • warrenm 4y ago
            I read it I don't hold to the extremes OSI does as to whether something fits their esoteric view of "open source", however
            • cweagans 4y ago
              It's not just OSI. Debian, FSF, etc. all don't see that as free software specifically because it restricts the ways that you can use the software - thereby defeating the point of having the source code in the first place. That's no different than some EULA saying you can't do xyz with this software without purchasing a $xxx,xxx license from the vendor or whatever: it's the same effect. It's an artificial boundary put in place that restricts the user from doing something. I don't find that particular view "esoteric" and I'm curious about why you do.
              • righttoolforjob 4y ago
                Exactly. It is fine to call it "source available" or something.