
MongoDB should not be part of a stable release - giancarlostoro
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=916107
======
kanox
> we will not distributing any SSPL-licensed software

Makes sense to me, attempts at limiting commercial use make software non-free.

------
bithavoc
I just hope CockroachLabs doesn't come up with a dick move like the MongoDB
SSPL license, it would really hurt me since I've been selling the thing and
using it in all my new projects. I can't imagine the frustration of the
Mongodb users right now.

~~~
SilasX
But then Amazon can just release a cheaper replacement called InfestationDB.

~~~
bithavoc
I think in such case AWS would be implementing Spanner/F1 directly using
Postgres protocol and I'm sure that like Google Spanner itself, it won't be
cheap.

For the rest of us we can start using CockroachDB from day zero hoping to get
big enough to someday need Enterprise features.

------
hartator
Now AWS copied MongoDB API without fees anyway, maybe MongoDB can revert their
license back?

~~~
wmf
They can still try to shake down GCP and Digital Ocean.

~~~
giancarlostoro
Does DigitalOcean count though? I thought the SSPL was in regards to offering
a database as a service vs offering an OS that you can host the database for
yourself in like DigitalOcean does.

~~~
wmf
Digital Ocean is growing up. K8saaS today, probably DBaaS tomorrow.

~~~
rishav_sharan
Postgres based dbaas is in beta right now

------
bedros
so, for the license experts out there, what's the difference between AGPLv3
and SSPLv1

~~~
giancarlostoro
From:

[https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-
license...](https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-
license/faq#difference)

> What specifically is different between the GPL and the SSPL and what will it
> be called?

> The new license will be called Server Side Public License (SSPL)

> The only substantive modification is section 13, which makes clear the
> condition to offering MongoDB as a service. A company that offers a publicly
> available MongoDB as a service must open source the software it uses to
> offer such service, including the management software, user interfaces,
> application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software,
> backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user
> could run an instance of the service using the source code made available.

> Section 13 of the SSPL reads as follows:

> “If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version
> available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source
> Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the
> terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified
> version available to third parties as a service includes, without
> limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the
> Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a
> service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of
> the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for
> users the primary purpose of the Software or modified version.

> “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the
> modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use
> to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including,
> without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application
> program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup
> software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could
> run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make
> available.”

So the license is closest to GPL than anything.

~~~
smsm42
> So the license is closest to GPL than anything.

That's not close to GPL at all. GPL is "if you use our software and modify it
and distribute the modifications, you must do it as open source". AGPL is
"same as GPL only you must also publish modifications if you're just using
it". SSPL is "if you touch our software you must open-source your whole data
center". The message here is clearly "don't ever touch our software unless
you're already 100% open source shop". GPL never went this far, and for a good
reason - nobody in commerce would touch GPLed software with a ten-foot pole if
that was the case. People are wary of GPL, but SSPL is taking it to insane
length, clearly construed to disable, not enable, it's use.

~~~
talltimtom
SSPL is basically trying to say we are open source unless you make money, in
which case pay us or you need to be open source(not the kind of open source we
are, the actual kind). And at the end of the day it just means that they
aren’t open source anymore, they are a proprietary shop who lets hobbyist see
their source code.

------
Arzh
If you're using MongoDB nothing is stable /s

------
iqy
Discussion about the SSPL and the DFSG: [https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537)

------
DyslexicAtheist
I understand why distributions are dumping projects due to licensing changes
but haven't seen any (incl Debian/Fedora) to ever dump a project for severely
violating basic security[1]. kudos though to Debian for displaying a giant
warning in case you wish to continue running minissdpd[2].

[1] I would like to be proven wrong though!

[2] [https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/155154/i-stopped-
mi...](https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/155154/i-stopped-minissdpd-
will-something-bad-happen)

~~~
51lver
Maybe you should use openbsd instead of debian if that is your primary
concern.

