If SaaS vendors haven't opened their software that uses Mongo under AGPL then I would assume that the additional software (which would count as another "part of the aggregate" according to AGPL), then it must have been substantial. In that case, how does one determine if one is "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"?
I assume that an online game that uses Mongo to store player data clearly does not derive its value mostly from the database, but is the value of a PaaS built on Mongo, with an elaborate UI and management services derived primarily from the value of Mongo or not? Is the value of an online recipe management service? In both cases I can see compelling arguments in either direction.
One could argue that if the value derived primarily from the DB, then very little software would need to be added and open sourcing it would not be an issue. That vendors don't open source their software shows that they believe its value does not come primarily from Mongo, and so they would be able to continue using it under the new license, defeating Mongo's purpose.
I assume that an online game that uses Mongo to store player data clearly does not derive its value mostly from the database, but is the value of a PaaS built on Mongo, with an elaborate UI and management services derived primarily from the value of Mongo or not? Is the value of an online recipe management service? In both cases I can see compelling arguments in either direction.
One could argue that if the value derived primarily from the DB, then very little software would need to be added and open sourcing it would not be an issue. That vendors don't open source their software shows that they believe its value does not come primarily from Mongo, and so they would be able to continue using it under the new license, defeating Mongo's purpose.