4 ms·

The SSPL does give MongoDB Inc. monopoly power by ensuring that only MongoDB Inc. can offer proprietary closed source software services in conjunction with Mong

The SSPL does give MongoDB Inc. monopoly power by ensuring that only MongoDB Inc. can offer proprietary closed source software services in conjunction with MongoDB, while other vendors may only offer source-available software services in conjunction with MongoDB (unless they purchase a commercial proprietary software license from MongoDB Inc.). This means without a separate proprietary software license, the SSPL does not allow other vendors to offer something like MongoDB's proprietary closed source Developer Data Platform (https://www.mongodb.com/developer-data-platform https://www.mongodb.com/developer-data-platform) without releasing any of the corresponding source code for the software that interacts with MongoDB. The FOSS community, including the Free Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, Debian Project, and Fedora Project, all recognize that because the SSPL requires users to release source code for software that the original developer (MongoDB Inc.) did not create, the SSPL is not a free software license or an open source software license. Free and open source software allows any user to use the software for any purpose (even if that purpose involves other proprietary software) and the SSPL does not. MongoDB Inc. decided to restrict competition by using its SSPL instead of a FOSS license. By doing so, the company made MongoDB source-available instead of open source.

JasonGoldman 3y ago
I wouldn't call it monopoly, because you are allowed to use it as a service, but I get your point. Yes, MongoDB doesn't have to pay itself a licensing fee since it's their own software while others should if they choose to make the software closed-source. It's only problematic if you want no restrictions in monetizing someone else's work as a web service but want to restrict others from doing just that with your work and on top of that you are not willing to pay for exclusive privileges. I find this expectation unreasonable and unfair. A fair definition of open source should allow commensalistic relationships (in which users use the software but do not contribute back) but not parasitic relationships (when users exploit the software in a way that is detrimental to the project).
- commoner 3y ago
  Why are you so intent on hijacking the term open source to refer to software that does not preserve the user's freedom to use the software as they wish? The goal of open source software is to preserve the user's freedoms, not to preserve the developer's ability to profit from the software. Other people have already invented a term for source-available software that is not open source due to restrictions on commercial use. It's called "fair-code", which is a term that encapsulates the ideals you're looking for: https://faircode.io https://faircode.io There's no reason to weaken the definition of the term open source when there are already other terms to describe source-available software that is not open source.

JasonGoldman 3y ago

I wouldn't call it monopoly, because you are allowed to use it as a service, but I get your point. Yes, MongoDB doesn't have to pay itself a licensing fee since it's their own software while others should if they choose to make the software closed-source. It's only problematic if you want no restrictions in monetizing someone else's work as a web service but want to restrict others from doing just that with your work and on top of that you are not willing to pay for exclusive privileges. I find this expectation unreasonable and unfair. A fair definition of open source should allow commensalistic relationships (in which users use the software but do not contribute back) but not parasitic relationships (when users exploit the software in a way that is detrimental to the project).

commoner 3y ago
Why are you so intent on hijacking the term open source to refer to software that does not preserve the user's freedom to use the software as they wish? The goal of open source software is to preserve the user's freedoms, not to preserve the developer's ability to profit from the software. Other people have already invented a term for source-available software that is not open source due to restrictions on commercial use. It's called "fair-code", which is a term that encapsulates the ideals you're looking for: https://faircode.io https://faircode.io There's no reason to weaken the definition of the term open source when there are already other terms to describe source-available software that is not open source.