Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ranting-moth 917 days ago
Their license "is to require that enhancements to MongoDB be released to the community."

I think it only hurts people who want to freeride the project and extend it for selfish personal gains. That's OK by me.
3 comments
peterfarkas 917 days ago
Anyone can provide Postgres, MySQL or other open source databases as a service.

For this reason, there are many providers to choose from, and there is a healthy amount of innovation and competition in the space. Prices are set by market and demand, as it should be.

And then there is MongoDB where only a handful of providers could negotiate a license, and the price is set by MongoDB Inc.

In my opinion this is by no means "fine" from a user perspective as we are talking about database software.

If anyone did freeriding, it is MongoDB Inc. who chose to freeride on the open source community for marketing purposes, before switching to SSPL.

link
PeterZaitsev 917 days ago
Not really. It really designed to prevent anyone else having MongoDB DBaaS without having license from MongoDB, which it does rather successfully.
link
varelaz 917 days ago
That's reply to Amazon abuse of MongoDB (DocumentDB)
link
PeterZaitsev 917 days ago
It is the opposite. Amazon would have released MongoDB as a service, same as they do for PostgreSQL or MySQL. As MongoDB changed license they implemented DocumentDB instead.

Note AWS significantly contributes to PostgreSQL and MySQL communities (though you could always want even more) but of course does not to MongoDB. While this is fine for MongoDB Inc I think it is not great for MongoDB community at large

link