4 ms·

Personally, that blog post is just arrogance from OSI. I read it. It didn’t make clear which freedoms were being removed. They are still able to run cloud hosti

Personally, that blog post is just arrogance from OSI. I read it. It didn’t make clear which freedoms were being removed. They are still able to run cloud hosting just release their custom code? And OSI thinking they alone get to decide what is and what is not open source is arrogant.

aleksi 4y ago
> They are still able to run cloud hosting just release their custom code? The SSPL license reads: > […] you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. You just can't comply with those terms if you don't have access to the source code of your storage software, for example. (but I'm not a lawyer, of course) > And OSI thinking they alone get to decide what is and what is not open source is arrogant. OSI invented the term “open source”: https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso... I think they are in a position to define what it means.
- vrtx0 4y ago
  No, the term “open source” was in use before long before the OSI, and it was in popular/hacker culture in the 1980s. UNIVAC used it in for a major system in the 1950s. [1] I used it in 1993 (I wrote a small BBS). The OSI looks and sounds like an authority on open source software, but their entire strategy is legal, political and quasi-philosophical. I get how easy it is to be mislead by them though — they’re good at spinning things and rewriting history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sou...
  - PeterZaitsev 4y ago
    There are 3 "competing" Open Source and Free Software definitions - from OSI, Free Software Foundation and Debian. MongoDB does not match any of them and most importantly does not match the spirit of Open Source Software Movement.
    - that_guy_iain 4y ago
      Please state in what way they don’t? This is what I’m confused about. Apgl is open source but a sspl isn’t? They seem to be aimed at solving the same thing, which is cloud/server based code modifications.
      - peterfarkas 4y ago
        SSPL goes way beyond AGPL as it contains an additional clause called "Offering the Program as a Service". It is not defined at all what constitutes providing MongoDB as a service. How many layers are needed to abstract MongoDB in a way that it doesn't trigger this clause? There are no answers for that in the SSPL. It comes with an enormous amount of risk compared to AGPL. There is a good article from Dor Laor at ScyllaDB which explains this in detail [1]. Moreover, cloud providers are not limited to AWS, Azure and GCP. Smaller providers whom we talked to are not able to negotiate licensing terms with MongoDB the same way as how AWS could. For this reason, these providers are not able to provide MongoDB as a service. Yes, it's great for MongoDB that they were stopped from providing MongoDB for free, but now they can't provide the service at all. This limits competition and choices, and that is never in the favor of users. [1]: https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodbs-new-license/ https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodb...
        that_guy_iain 4y ago
        AGPL is basically the same thing, except far more reaching. AGPL, to my understanding, makes it a requirement if you allow people to use the software via network levels. “Program as a Service” seems a lot more limited in scope. All new licenses come with risk since the decisions can only be made via court decisions.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  I am confused. If you use a custom storage system then you would have the code for it. No?
  - mitjam 4y ago
    Yes and custom network software for routers, switches, firewalls, and custom OSes etc.
    - that_guy_iain 4y ago
      Those aren’t listed are they? The idea you need to release code for the os, file system, network routers, etc is absurd.
      - zokier 4y ago
        SSPL license text doesn't set any limits on the scope for source release. Verbatim quote: > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. Basically it is saying you need to release the source of every tiny bit in your stack and then some.
        vrtx0 4y ago
        I think “including, without limitation, […]” applies to the breadth of components, not depth, right? I mean, I’m not a lawyer, but that seems to be what syntactic context and logic indicate… no? If you disagree, could you indicate the relevant text?
        that_guy_iain 4y ago
        Your interpretation ignores the sentence “all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the service source code”. That just means they need to be able to run the service. Not have the exact same stack.
peterfarkas 4y ago
While I do respect your opinion, I disagree. I think that arrogance is when a single vendor tries to single-handedly redefine open-source to fit their business needs better. Not just a license, but the definition itself. A quote from the MongoDB CEO: "MongoDB was built by MongoDB. There was no prior art. We didn't open source it for help; we open sourced it as a freemium strategy". [1] Whether the OSI was arrogant or not, I really don't want this person to define opensource. [1]: https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-interview https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-inter...
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  I am not really sure what your issue is. What you think open-source as freemium isn’t a model? If it wasn’t for copy-left licenses that forced companies to release code that they used to create their products we wouldn’t have Linux in its current state. In a world, where many products are cloud based it seems fair and within the current model of open source to force code sharing.

aleksi 4y ago

> They are still able to run cloud hosting just release their custom code? The SSPL license reads: > […] you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. You just can't comply with those terms if you don't have access to the source code of your storage software, for example. (but I'm not a lawyer, of course) > And OSI thinking they alone get to decide what is and what is not open source is arrogant. OSI invented the term “open source”: https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso... I think they are in a position to define what it means.

vrtx0 4y ago
No, the term “open source” was in use before long before the OSI, and it was in popular/hacker culture in the 1980s. UNIVAC used it in for a major system in the 1950s. [1] I used it in 1993 (I wrote a small BBS). The OSI looks and sounds like an authority on open source software, but their entire strategy is legal, political and quasi-philosophical. I get how easy it is to be mislead by them though — they’re good at spinning things and rewriting history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sou...
- PeterZaitsev 4y ago
  There are 3 "competing" Open Source and Free Software definitions - from OSI, Free Software Foundation and Debian. MongoDB does not match any of them and most importantly does not match the spirit of Open Source Software Movement.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    Please state in what way they don’t? This is what I’m confused about. Apgl is open source but a sspl isn’t? They seem to be aimed at solving the same thing, which is cloud/server based code modifications.
    - peterfarkas 4y ago
      SSPL goes way beyond AGPL as it contains an additional clause called "Offering the Program as a Service". It is not defined at all what constitutes providing MongoDB as a service. How many layers are needed to abstract MongoDB in a way that it doesn't trigger this clause? There are no answers for that in the SSPL. It comes with an enormous amount of risk compared to AGPL. There is a good article from Dor Laor at ScyllaDB which explains this in detail [1]. Moreover, cloud providers are not limited to AWS, Azure and GCP. Smaller providers whom we talked to are not able to negotiate licensing terms with MongoDB the same way as how AWS could. For this reason, these providers are not able to provide MongoDB as a service. Yes, it's great for MongoDB that they were stopped from providing MongoDB for free, but now they can't provide the service at all. This limits competition and choices, and that is never in the favor of users. [1]: https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodbs-new-license/ https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodb...
      - that_guy_iain 4y ago
        AGPL is basically the same thing, except far more reaching. AGPL, to my understanding, makes it a requirement if you allow people to use the software via network levels. “Program as a Service” seems a lot more limited in scope. All new licenses come with risk since the decisions can only be made via court decisions.
that_guy_iain 4y ago
I am confused. If you use a custom storage system then you would have the code for it. No?
- mitjam 4y ago
  Yes and custom network software for routers, switches, firewalls, and custom OSes etc.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    Those aren’t listed are they? The idea you need to release code for the os, file system, network routers, etc is absurd.
    - zokier 4y ago
      SSPL license text doesn't set any limits on the scope for source release. Verbatim quote: > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. Basically it is saying you need to release the source of every tiny bit in your stack and then some.
      - vrtx0 4y ago
        I think “including, without limitation, […]” applies to the breadth of components, not depth, right? I mean, I’m not a lawyer, but that seems to be what syntactic context and logic indicate… no? If you disagree, could you indicate the relevant text?
      - that_guy_iain 4y ago
        Your interpretation ignores the sentence “all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the service source code”. That just means they need to be able to run the service. Not have the exact same stack.

peterfarkas 4y ago

While I do respect your opinion, I disagree. I think that arrogance is when a single vendor tries to single-handedly redefine open-source to fit their business needs better. Not just a license, but the definition itself. A quote from the MongoDB CEO: "MongoDB was built by MongoDB. There was no prior art. We didn't open source it for help; we open sourced it as a freemium strategy". [1] Whether the OSI was arrogant or not, I really don't want this person to define opensource. [1]: https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-interview https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-inter...

that_guy_iain 4y ago
I am not really sure what your issue is. What you think open-source as freemium isn’t a model? If it wasn’t for copy-left licenses that forced companies to release code that they used to create their products we wouldn’t have Linux in its current state. In a world, where many products are cloud based it seems fair and within the current model of open source to force code sharing.