Red Hat gets heebie-jeebies over MongoDB's T&Cs squeeze: NoSQL database dropped from RHEL 8B over license MongoDB justified its decision last October to shift the free version of its NoSQL database software, MongoDB Community Server, from the open-source GNU Affero General Public License to the not-quite-so-open Server Side Public License (SSPL) by arguing that cloud providers sell open-source software as a service without giving …
"This will have little impact on adoption," he said in an email to The Register. "The vast majority of developers get MongoDB software directly from MongoDB, and at times from Docker, Homebrew or similar repos.
True, it just won't be this engineer. AWS, make no mistake, is the 800# gorilla in the room when your target platform probably will be cloud as well as local. Clients aren't sure what platform they'll be using in the near, let alone far, future.
In the last several companies I've worked with, I've actively discouraged people from using software not supported by their cloud provider.
Why? Because the whole idea of using cloud based infrastructure is about offloading large chunks of maintenance to someone else. Rolling your own just defeats the purpose.
I manage IT at a small MSP, and we used to be very supportive of MongoDB adoption by our clients and even recommended MongoDB several times for new NoSQL development, and we did actually talk up and recommend the enterprise version, especially for critical setups, though not everyone buys into that. We actually were going to start offering it as a service internally.
Now, we are trying to avoid it for any new deployments, having to manually manage all existing deployments, dissuade usage of it by clients, and completely killing the idea of running it 'aaS'. We certainly are not going to be handing out all of the automation code and internal platforms we have created, mostly for other systems, just to be within license for MongoDB.
Pretty much, this move has soured all current and future work with MongoDB for us and will most certainly lead to the same elsewhere.
"We certainly are not going to be handing out all of the automation code and internal platforms we have created, mostly for other systems, just to be within license for MongoDB."
FWIW you don't _have_ to do this - the alternative is you pay Mongo a wedge of cash for a different license, which is of course entirely the point.
It was nice knowing you.
I do understand why you had to change your license but what you have ended up with is a dogs breakfast that no one wants to agree to.
As one commentator (corevoid) has said here,
We certainly are not going to be handing out all of the automation code and internal platforms we have created, mostly for other systems, just to be within license for MongoDB.
That echoes the sentiments of a lot of people. This license is IMHO like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger.
Coat (black naturally) with a black tie in the pocket so that I can go to MongoDB's funeral.
Well, sure, an open-source license which compels making the underlying infrastructure open-source as well is pretty silly, perhaps even stupid, but it's still open-source.
But Perens is entitled to his opinion: It isn't something I'd do, so "... don't call it Open Source." I guess that settles, it, huh?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
