undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgqewogpdqa3y ago0 comments

>This is basically the anti-AWS license: for AWS to run MongoDB proper, they'd need to expose source for huge amounts of their backplane.

Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have.

> It's also not open source under almost anyone's definition.

Enter the OSI. While it not be "Open Source" (note the capitals) I don't think anybody has the right to legislate the use of "open source" with lower case letters. A nit, but an important one - the capitals force us to realize that it's not a word in Webster's Dictionary. It's a proper noun definiton put forth and pushed by one organization. I can certainly say "...oracle is lying..." but if I say "...Oracle is lying...", I expect the black cars to drive up to my house pretty quickly.

0 comments

bad416f1f5a23y ago

> Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have.

True, that is an option. I’ll give anyone odds of it happening ;-)

> While it not be "Open Source" (note the capitals) I don't think anybody has the right to legislate the use of "open source" with lower case letters.

I think talking about “open source” is overloaded to uselessness. I really prefer to talk about licenses.

Even then the consensus I’ve heard from most people who care to think about software licensing is that the SSPL is essentially a weaponized license designed to strip freedoms. Lowercase open source, you be the judge.

gqewogpdqaOP3y ago

It's happened 15+ times before :-) I agree - talking about actual facts - i.e. licenses - is far better. I think SSPL (and AGPL) for that matter, protect freedoms - the freedoms of small companies to innovate and not have their work gobbled up and used by gorillas who have the power of distribution and platform. I don't know about the deals MongoDB has made with these 15+ cloud providers, but clearly it's working somehow. That said, maybe they would indeed not license to the three "biggies". Though it's unclear that those will be the three biggies for too much longer. Thanks for the clear comment back - sorry for being snarky in my note.

bad416f1f5a23y ago

No snark perceived! It was a valuable post that added more context to a topic that deserves it. Far too many people perceive a "black and white", open source / closed source distinction where none exists.

> That said, maybe they would indeed not license to the three "biggies"

I think it's actually likely the other direction: I suspect Mongo has been working with all three to get it licensed as a service, and any hesitation is from their potential customers.

I know AWS the best. They want total control, and hate paying other people. They can also afford a long time horizon. They didn't buy Annapurna Labs to offer an alternative to Intel. They aren't going to want to license Mongo because that cuts into margin and costs them control.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

bad416f1f5a23y ago

> Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have.

True, that is an option. I’ll give anyone odds of it happening ;-)

> While it not be "Open Source" (note the capitals) I don't think anybody has the right to legislate the use of "open source" with lower case letters.

I think talking about “open source” is overloaded to uselessness. I really prefer to talk about licenses.

gqewogpdqaOP3y ago

bad416f1f5a23y ago

> That said, maybe they would indeed not license to the three "biggies"

I think it's actually likely the other direction: I suspect Mongo has been working with all three to get it licensed as a service, and any hesitation is from their potential customers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse