[merlynn]

Michael from MongoDB here... Greed? You realize that anyone can still view, download, use, develop, modify and do everything they could do prior to the change - right? The only difference is that if they decide to offer the licensed software as a public service they must release the other components of the service under the same license.

[jayofdoom]

Honestly, from my perspective the problem is more the timing. If MongoDB had always been licensed this way, companies could make informed decisions about what product to use. Instead, you pulled a license bait and switch -- attracted people with a free-as-in-freedom license, then switched it for one that was less free after adoption picked up. That's not behavior I'd personally support as someone who has a career because of free software, and I wouldn't support it professionally because of the immense risk a company takes on when adopting a piece of software for long-term use -- like a DB.

[karmakaze]

As you may know there are different senses of 'free' at work here. How you're using it is as 'freedom to use'. The other is 'freedom of the source code information' which is to say that derivative works must also be released into the open. Open-source now has these two competing views. I would complain if software that was MIT licensed switched to a GPL one as it's switching camps. I would complain less if a GPL one switched to AGPL. I agree that it's best to choose the license that matches your beliefs from the start. We must also accept that a change in license is a distinct possibility and that we are free to fork.

[gnulinux]

Yeah but both free software and open source are well defined terms MongoDB doesn't have power to redefine (sorry guys). It's good to be principled because then you make fewer arbitrary decisions along the way. Your new license isn't free nor open; it's just a custom proprietary license that allows people see the source code and fork; just like freeware software can be "for gratis" but it's never "free software" or "open source". So, MongoDB is definitely proprietary software now. And it didn't used to be proprietary, and I think it's definitely a valid question whether this relicensing has something to do with greed. In the meanwhile, Debian and other free-only distros (e.g. GNU distros) should not include MongoDB.

I'm under the impression that everything in the paragraph above is objective and not subjective. I do not claim it is definitely greed, but since MongoDB did a completely arbitrary move to make license favoring them, it's valid to ask this question. My subjective opinion is that MongoDB committed suicide and they'll be forgotten in a few years time.

[metheus]

I also work for MongoDB.

I respect your opinion about whether the SSPL is free or open, but it is not one that is uniformly shared by the OSI, as evidenced by the discussion currently underway in the license-approval mailing list. Many have argued in its favor. On that basis, some of your assertions in paragraph one are subjective.

Not that there’s anything wrong with subjectivity! I think it is valid to ask the question of whether the move was motivated by greed... it’s even understandable why people would default to that conclusion. (I wish that weren’t the case, but I’m not naive.)

Since you’re asking, I will give you my answer: the SSPL was created to make it viable for open source projects that are largely or completely funded by a single entity to remain funded in an era of large cloud vendors. While it is about revenue, it is not about greed.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and I won’t ask you to just buy my claim. Just keep your eyes open for a conspicuous absence of MongoDB strong-arming community MongoDB users into buying commercial licenses.

As far as including MongoDB in Debian et al, goes, we absolutely respect process and principles. We’re waiting to see what the feedback from the OSI is.

[bad_user]

Businesses have to survive in a competitive market, I get it, you don't have to apologize for it and it's not greed, it's just how the market works.

That said, you did not work with OSI or the FSF before changing the license. And your company is not the only contributor to MongoDB, you have third party contributors as well, who did not have a say in it, because of the copyright attribution that you require.

In other words, you did not collaborate with OSI or the FSF and you screwed your contributors.

It's good that you're now waiting on feedback from OSI, but the damage to the FOSS ecosystem was already done.

[metheus]

I appreciate your comment about how the market works, thanks for that.

You certainly have a point about our not working with the OSI prior to issuing the SSPL. All other things being equal, we would like to have, but as a publicly traded company it's just not responsible to announce "we will be changing our license... to... something... we'll get back to you on what that'll be... sometime."

We weren't happy about it, but we're doing the best we can given the constraints. We're all grownups, and accept that one of the consequences is that some in the OSS community feel betrayed by that change, but we ask that you let our actions going forward, not the worst suspicions of those most predisposed to judge us harshly, determine what you think of our dedication to OSS and our community.

As for non-employee contributors to the MongoDB codebase (who account for about 3% of the codebase), I think we should credit them with the same adult responsibility for their actions as we hold MongoDB to. Their contributions were made in full knowledge of the attribution requirement, and we have no reason to believe -- and no evidence -- that they resent anything MongoDB as a company has done.

[antt]

>It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

I'd say I'm surprised that some people are attacking your license, which overall forces providers to increase user freedom, but I remember the 90s and 00s when the GPL/AGPL was being attacked as a non-free (as in freedom) license - "How can it respect freedom when it FORCES me to release my source code?"

The same people today go on about how great the CC licenses are when they have the NC-SA, which I've been using for my artistic projects since it came out.

Do you have a Stallman like wall of text about defending users freedoms? Because there are enough people who would read it and understand what you're doing once they get past the FUD of "It's proprietary!!!".

[FireBeyond]

Because such things are "necessary" when it provides benefit: access to software/CC stock photography/imagery/fonts.

And less so when it impinges on the ability to make profit from it (leaving aside the argument about "no-one says you can't make money from open source software" - of course you can, but the business model is a little less... convenient... so they fault the license, not anything else).

[cheald]

Just FYI, a few years ago, I went through the due diligence process for an acquisition. The AGPL on MongoDB (at the time) was the single biggest sticking point for the lawyers. I had to do a lot of work to demonstrate that we had sufficient separation that our proprietary IP wasn't at risk due to the license. This was complicated by the fact that I was a major contributor to one of the drivers and the maintainer of one of the popular ODMs.

I would not make the choice to build a startup on MongoDB today given the expansion of the license's virality. Even if my business model wasn't in the SSPL's immediate crosshairs, the direction the license is moving gives me no confidence that MongoDB won't make my life harder down the road. It's just not worth the eventual headache. Lawyers make things hard enough, I'm not going to take on any more legal exposure than I absolutely need to in order to ship my product.

[DanielDent]

Nonsense. The AGPL is a pretty nasty license to begin with, but this new license makes your software nearly useless.

For example: prior to this change, people could develop an extension to MongoDB which combined MongoDB with some GPLv3 software, and they could then freely redistribute that combined work.

Now they cannot.

MongoDB may as well be Oracle as far as most developers will care now (that isn't a compliment).

[metheus]

The SSPLv2, currently under review by the OSI, does not have this property.

[gnomewascool]

As a counterpoint to all the flack that you're getting here, I admire the way that you're trying to create a license that is still in the spirit of reciprocity of Free Software and Open Source (if "maximally viral", beyond the limits of copyleft as it was initially envisioned), but compatible with what you perceive the economic realities to be, and how you're maintaining a dialogue with the community (at OSI).

[tobias3]

Having read the license it seems like (in MongoDB context) a license where the GPL virality is more explicitly stated to include service mangement sofware. One could already argue that this software is "derived" if it depends on and extents MongoDB.

Couldn't you get in contact with the EFF and work on a more general, more viral form of AGPL, and treat the current license as more of a stop-gap measure? With those viral licenses it is really important to have only a few, so that they are compatible.

[merlynn]

Not sure about the EFF but I know that MongoDB has submitted the SSPL to the OSI and has already taken feedback from that process.

[giancarlostoro]

But it's one less freedom I have. Say I contribute to MongoDB heavily and want to get into the Mongo as a service business, will I be able to without having to pay for the freedom to do it? It's a crippled form of freedom when some things are free as in free beer, and others aren't. I preferred the AGPL because it was explicit about sharing code if you change anything on the server-side.

[NeonVice]

If I offer MongoDB as a cloud service with a homegrown web interface (e.g. mLab) then I am required to release my web interface?

[unethical_ban]

Yes.

[tdb7893]

For me the problem isn't so much the license as the change felt somewhat like a bait and switch. After you became popular you changed the license to be more favorable to you, which is always a sketchy move.

[grumpydba]

There are several closed licenses which allow you to do that. Mongodb now uses one of those closed licenses.

The wording is so vague that this license is incredibly toxic, no one in their right mind would consider using it.

Seriously, is that all you IP lawyers can come up with ?

[sieabahlpark]

Thanks for finally giving Amazon the kick it needed to implement your API. We finally don't have to manage a mongodb cluster anymore.

[merlynn]

I suppose but it might be interesting to note that you didn't have to wait for Amazon for that. A lot of people don't know that there exists a fully managed offering from MongoDB. It's called Atlas... not trying to sell here - just informing people that may read your comment and think it was a valid motivation for Amazon to create their DocumentDB offering. Atlas has existed for 2 years.

[jhasse]

Isn't this covered by the AGPL already?