8 ms·

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

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.