Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

(Context: I worked on Compose/MongoHQ for a very long time. We were the first to monetize MongoDB)

I'm sure people will get riled up about this, but it makes sense. Building a business on an OSS database in a world of behemoth cloud providers is really hard. It's clear Google and Amazon (and maybe even Azure) are comfy taking OSS work, doing a ton of proprietary development on it, and leaving the companies who did all the groundwork flailing in the wind.

These things are going to keep happening as long as mega tech companies (a) use OSS to commoditize other companies' products and (b) exploit permissive licenses to the max.

I don't want to live in a world where the only infrastructure software we have access to is what the big companies deign to open source. Life is better when small groups of devs can build and sustain critical infrastructure software. We need more haproxies and redises and binds and (fill in blank).

That said, MongoDB has never figured out how to work with their ecosystem in a way that's good for everyone. They've gone from trying to extort money from smaller companies to undercutting them to this. And it's likely not gonna change much this time, the world of "run a database as a service" is changing I think, and being replaced with more generic tools that just so happen to manage complex persistence well.

_Also_ I bet some random licensing folks are crapping their pants at IBM right now. I'm ashamed at how funny that is.



sort by: page size:

> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE

You sound like a fucking tyrant.


> But as a business owner I can’t have my software open source.

May I ask for more details - in your particular case, how would having your software open source hurt your business?

Just pure curiosity, nothing else.


> I would use an open source db for payments

The idea that you're using something for mission-critical things and can't even look at the source code seems terrifying and absolutely nuts to me.


> My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat

Sun bought MySQL for 1 billion USD in 2008, does that not count as successful?

Also, MongoDB, Elastic and many many others...


> So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version where it was open source.

To what end? Why should we use a fork that's supported by a few people when we can still use the Community Edition that's from the horse's mouth? The idea of forking things for the fun of it actually perpetuates the problem that we already have with OSS. We want to get things for free, use them to make money, but still expect support for new features and bug fixes. This is worse when someone does this in their 'free time'.

Let's discuss the merits of forking from when it was open source. Percona has a fork, or is it not fit for purpose as they also adopted the SSPL thing?

Wait, how has a fork of MongoDB also adopted MongoDB's evil license? How are they able to take contributions from MongoDB and package them under the same license? Do they share the source code internally, or do they upstream changes that are in the open?

> Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out.

Isn't restricting Amazon and others from profiting from their efforts part of figuring out this business model?

> But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, lock in, etc.

Did MongoDB sell you their product as open-source? Which specific product? Was it the Community database, or the Enterprise one? Your argument lacks substance, because you're responding to someone who's asking why people are moving to another closed source product, one whose source code you can't even inspect.


> What stops Google from open sourcing Datastore, or AWS from open sourcing dynamoDB?

They have invested millions into creating cloud software. If they open source it, what is stopping other firms from taking that software and creating their own cloud offering?

Would you work for free? Would you open source all the work you have done?


> Well how much work can you expect a for-profit-company to do in order to release their software as open source?

A lot actually I expect them to make open source software and in all regards this has happened.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2914643/open-source-softwar...


OP: I have issues with the phrase "open-source devs don't owe you anything"

Reply: OPEN-SOURCE DEVS DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING!!!

Come on, at least try to engage with what's being said.


> We're keeping it closed-source for now.

Rama sounds interesting to me for my 'next big project', but I'd not even consider building it on top of a closed core. I think this is a pretty common sentiment in these circles.

I understand building an OSS business is not easy either. But perhaps there is some middle of the road that you can walk?

- A contractual obligation to open source all (now current) code a couple of years in the future? - Or an almost-OSS license that makes life difficult for competing cloud providers, like https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license... ?


>Unfortunately, at this time, it only works with PostgreSQL and every time we show it to PostgreSQL people they love it but want it to be open source. Obviously, we had hoped to sell it so that's a big disappointment.

Just because you make the software open source doesnt mean you cant sell it. At its rawest form open source just means that you are going to share the source code.

If a business is big enough that they have staff who can integrate your open source project would they have been a customer of yours anyway? And if they arent going to be a customer, why not have them as a tester and potential contributor? And if they are a serious company, they usually want a service contract for crucial pieces of software.

You could even have a license that allows using and modifying your software but limits redistribution (i.e. selling) although I wouldnt recommend it.


> Is it open source?

Probably not

> Why do I care?

You might not.

> The same reason I don't use AWS or Google Cloud only datastores: I want to avoid vendor lockin.

Sounds like this isn't the product for you then.

Is that a surprise?


Post logic: Here is an example of a company taking their software closed sourced after previously being open. Also, AWS.

AWS uses the crud out of open source. They admittedly "steal" it in that they fork it internally, applying patches, add UI, and then sell it. They still depend highly on basically all the open source software in the world.

That Amazon does this is a rallying call for new licensing schemes. Large monopolistic companies such as Amazon need to be legally shut out of this type of abuse of open source software. So long as we go "It's fine. You have to allow this to truly embrace open source" then we will continue to see Amazon try to shut down all "open core companies" that they can by outright stealing their IP.

Open source is not developed primarily by hobbyists or aficionados. Most open source imo comes from closed source projects being open sourced by companies in order to gain free testing, free work ( contributions ), and more market share ( exposure / interest )

Heralding the death of open-source seems like nonsense just to grab attention. I agree that the large companies are trying to crush open-core companies that are small, but it is obvious they are doing this and there will be a backlash from those of us who don't appreciate their meddling.


> I'm not so confident if the code itself will live up to the reputation of the services it provides.

Then don't open source it.

If you are running a business then it should be a financial/business decision. Is there any financial/business reason to open source it?

Weigh the opportunity costs and make the decision.


> What do you consider open source biz models?

Something that doesn't involve proprietary software, so support or pure-OSS SaaSS. Like RedHat.

> If you remember the name or speaker maybe I can find it?

I think it may have been one by either NextCloud or RedHat, I'll try to find it.


> Developer productivity is far more valuable that open source purity.

I mean, at least you get access to MongoDB source code, so that is something.

I remember working on a project that used Clusterpoint years ago and the problem was that it was basically an abandoned piece of software due to the company behind it no longer releasing new versions. It was running, yes, but getting data out of it and migrating to something else sure took work and was very annoying because a lot of functionality had been built around it.

So in regards to something so critical as databases and data storage solutions, I'd err on the side of picking things that are open source, or have compatible alternatives with permissive licenses.

If someone were to build their own business around MongoDB (say, offering it as a service) and then SSPL came along, they'd be done for, even if just because of getting caught up in things going on between the org and large cloud vendors or something. Same with how you have to be careful with AGPL, so something like MinIO might be a non-starter in some cases.


> Can anyone name a recent open source library or program that is widely used and community controlled beside Linux?

I'd answer the opposite question. What do I use in my daily work that isn't open source? Sure there's binary blobs/drivers here and there, and whatever the cloud providers are keeping to themselves.

But c'mon, all the languages, the build tools, web frameworks, libraries, databases (sql and non-sql).


> This is not a good outcome for people who want an independent OSS ecosystem.

I understand why this is not ideal for Elastic-the-company, but is it a bad outcome in the longer term?

As someone who is happy open source exists but uses mostly proprietary software, this seems like a natural and expected response to an open source project adopting a more restrictive license.


> But you can't have a company that starts with a bunch of OSS devs saying "open source lols" and somehow VCs throw money at it

It did work for them, didn't it?

The flip side of story is that ES or mongodb probably wouldn't have grown popular if they weren't open source.

Maybe going closed source once people know your name, is a viable path.


> I do not understand why it isn't open source.

Because your software project then becomes a people management project.

next

Legal | privacy