|
|
|
|
|
|
by princekolt
2799 days ago
|
|
|
Okay so after reading the article, and thinking about this for a while, I get the following out of this debacle: The issue here is that SaaS providers are building tools on top of MongoDB that effectively add functionality, instead of modifying MongoDB (which would force them to share those changes publicly). This is a valid concern and I understand the motivation behind the license change. However, how is this different from any other FOSS? Just as a random example, think of a proprietary blog/site provider like Tumblr and Weebly. They are effectively a SaaS provider that introduces tools on top of open-source web servers (like nginx or apache) to make hosting a website much easier. Instead of building the entire model/code of your website, you simply add customizations using a frontend. Maybe the comparison is not ideal, but my understanding is that all FOSS suffers from this concern, and the industry seems to be doing well enough. |
|
|
You're in the right ballpark, for sure, but the SSPL addresses the difference explicitly. I'll use your example of Tumblr to clarify.
Tumblr is built on some component technologies, like a database, an app framework, operating systems, backup systems, load balancing, etc. But Tumblr itself is not any of those things. Nor does it make any of its component technologies available to the public as a service. You cannot pay Tumblr to backup your servers, or to rent you VMs running an OS, or to do load balancing for your infrastructure. Even if every single one of those components were licensed under the SSPL, Tumblr would not have to release a single line of their code under the SSPL, because they provide something else -- a publishing platform.