Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Rejects MongoDB's 'Discriminatory' Server Side Public License (zdnet.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the discriminating-databases? dept.

An anonymous reader quotes ZDNet: MongoDB is an open-source document NoSQL database with a problem. While very popular, cloud companies, such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), IBM Cloud, Scalegrid, and ObjectRocket has profited from it by offering it as a service while MongoDB Inc. hasn't been able to monetize it to the same degree. MongoDB's answer? Relicense the program under its new Server Side Public License (SSPL).

Open-source powerhouse Red Hat's reaction? Drop MongoDB from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. Red Hat's Technical and Community Outreach Program Manager Tom Callaway explained, in a note stating MongoDB is being removed from Fedora Linux, that "It is the belief of Fedora that the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be aggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users." Debian Linux had already dropped MongoDB from its distribution....

The business point behind MongoDB's license change is to force cloud companies to use one of MongoDB's commercial cloud offerings. This hasn't worked either. AWS just launched DocumentDB, a database, which "is designed to be compatible with your existing MongoDB applications and tools," wrote AWS evangelist Jeff Barr.

24 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Open source monetization by stikves · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There has been more discussions about monetization of open source projects. While coding as a hobby and helping projects as a philanthropy work is very good, long term stable projects need continuous funding.

    This has worked for RedHat and other enterprise oriented companies with their support contract offerings. It also worked nice for existing companies -- including even Microsoft -- which uses open source partially. However if you only have a single offering, like MongoDB the situation was not as clear.

    And it is not AWS's fault that they don't want to pay per-seat licensing fees: https://www.techrepublic.com/a...

    1. Re:Open source monetization by Luthair · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For GCC don't vendors (Intel, AMD, ARM) commonly contribute? Depending on how key their contributions are to GCC one might be able to make the argument that selling CPUs is the money maker.

    2. Re:Open source monetization by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Am I alone in feeling that open source vendor clouds feel somewhat contrary to open source? I can't express why, so perhaps its simply a no odder than the pro versions with additional features

      While Mongo's hosted solution has the rather obvious problem that they don't have the scale to compete with cloud vendors. I suspect that most of the value they could offer for paid support on top of an AWS provided DB seems minimal - the common deployment and hardware scaling issues should be opaque really leaving only query and data structure which is high touch.

      If they aren't already I imagine RedHat, Canonical, etc. are also feeling the squeeze. If a big source of their business was supporting users with on-premise servers moving to the cloud nips that.

      I work for a significantly smaller OSS company, our situation is somewhat different as its a niche product which doesn't seem as likely to be affected by Amazon, etc.

    3. Re:Open source monetization by lsllll · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I read the start of your comment, "Emacs", I thought you were offering an obvious alternative to MongoDB!

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    4. Re:Open source monetization by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has worked for RedHat and other enterprise oriented companies with their support contract offerings. It also worked nice for existing companies -- including even Microsoft -- which uses open source partially. However if you only have a single offering, like MongoDB the situation was not as clear.

      Now go through that sentence and replace "MongoDB" with literally any open source/free software project, from GCC to KDE, and you'll see the problem with it. Indeed, just restricting yourself to DBMSes from MySQL to PostgreSQL still shows that it doesn't hold up. MongoDB could rely upon contributions and maintenance from interested parties, including donations of code from parties dedicated to MongoDB via consultancy, software aggregators like RedHat, projects that use MongoDB like... uh, whoever does, and so on.

      But it doesn't, and instead it goes for a "It's free (libre & gratis) until you use it" model, which just plain isn't going to work for any other company in the free software and open source communities.

      I understand the concerns. But the "solution" they're talking about doesn't work with the needs of the rest of the community even if it appears to help them, so while they adopt it, they can't really expect the rest of the community to contribute to and support their project.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Open source monetization by vbdasc · · Score: 2

      Emacs is so yesterday. These days, the obvious alternative to anything is called systemd.

  2. Red Hat was bought by IBM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who cares? What system administrator cares what their says operating system in terms of databases?

    From the article:

    The business point behind MongoDB's license change is to force cloud companies to use one of MongoDB's commercial cloud offerings. This hasn't worked either.

    No, the business point was to prevent companies like Amazon from hosting MongoDB [theoretically] as-is, like they do with other products like Kafka and Elasticsearch, which have subtle changes and limitations compared to self-hosted instances, but they are largely good enough. In the case of AWS, they were apparently successful enough to force AWS to host a database with a MongoDB-compatible API rather than actually hosting a modified copy of MongoDB's code.

    The obvious hope of that situation was that this would prevent those companies (AWS, IBM, Microsoft Azure, etc) from hosting compatible-enough layers, but that has proven unsuccessful with AWS' announcement (as well as CosmosDB on Azure, which was announced awhile before the license change and is closer to AWS DocumentDB than MongoDB).

    As an open source developer and fan, I do not understand the hate toward MongoDB's move. It is not exactly an attractive move, but their hands have been forced by the likes of AWS and Azure taking without giving back. They've developed a successful, large business around their database. But because it's open source, Azure and AWS are going to get the lion share of profits without giving back a line of code.

    1. Re:Red Hat was bought by IBM by Desler · · Score: 2

      But because it's open source, Azure and AWS are going to get the lion share of profits without giving back a line of code.

      Boohoo. If they wanted to be paid they shouldn't have made the software available under terms that it could be freely used without being paid. They should have sold it as proprietary software.

      They don't get to have their cake and eat it, too.

    2. Re:Red Hat was bought by IBM by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      It is not exactly an attractive move, but their hands have been forced by the likes of AWS and Azure taking without giving back. They've developed a successful, large business around their database. But because it's open source, Azure and AWS are going to get the lion share of profits without giving back a line of code.

      Should HPe and Dell give MongoDB cash whenever I buy new servers to run their database on my premises? Does that make sense? Then why should AWS or Azure have to pay up when I buy my servers on their hardware?

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    3. Re: Red Hat was bought by IBM by Desler · · Score: 2

      If AWS were hosting real MongoDB and providing it as a SaaS model, then AWS (and anyone else doing it) should give a cut to the company actually making the product.

      Why?

    4. Re:Red Hat was bought by IBM by Desler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then MongoDB should have been charging from the beginning if they wanted to be paid. Also, you can get RHEL essentially free with CentOS just without any support.

      So again, MongoDB should have used a proprietary license from the get go instead of using a GPL license where one of the terms of that "free software" license is:

      Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.

      MongoDB doesn't just get to ride the coattails of free software when they like but when people use the software in full compliance to both the spirit and letter of the license then start complaining.

    5. Re: Red Hat was bought by IBM by alexgieg · · Score: 2

      I'm under no obligation, ethically or morally, to actually do that.

      It depends on the ethical system you adopt. For example, if you're going with Protestant ethics, then your affirmation is correct and you are under no obligation. If you go with Catholic ethics though, then it is incorrect and you're indeed under the obligation to do that. Similarly, at a more general level in Consequentialist ethics you're (usually) under no obligation, while on Virtue and Deontological ethics you are under the obligation.

      As such, your affirmation says more about which ethical framework you subscribe to than about the issue itself.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    6. Re: Red Hat was bought by IBM by Shaitan · · Score: 2

      "but I'm under no obligation, ethically or morally, to actually do that."

      You may be under no legal or professional ethical obligation to do so but you lose on the moral point. Failing to do so is a dick move and dick moves are moral fails.

      "or hire our own Database experts"

      It's a side note but running any serious DB is going to require this. Support exists so there is a place for shit to roll down to. It is a sad reality but a reality none-the-less that people in suits don't realize there are simply too many details and threads in tech, too much complexity, too many fail points. The point you fail on being an expensive one vs a cheap one ultimately comes down to luck and blame from the suits for expensive mistakes just results in axing perfectly good staff.

  3. This is why we need diversity in open source. by xack · · Score: 4, Funny

    So one vendor can't make an "evil" license with vendor lock-in. I expect systemD and chromium will be the next projects to do something like this. And before you say fork, i say spoon.

  4. ScyllaDB's CEO has the best take on it by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Source

    On the surface, the intention is good and clear, the following two types of OSS usage will be handled fairly well:

            Valid OSS internal usage
            A company, let’s call it CatWalkingStartup, uses MongoDB OSS to store cat walking paths. It’s definitely not a MongoDB competitor and not a database service, thus a valid use of the license.
            MongoDB as a service usage
            A company, let’s call it BetterBiggerCloud, offers MongoDB as a service without contributing back a single line of code. This is not a valid use according to SSPL. In such a case, BetterBiggerCloud will either need to pay for an Enterprise license or open all of their code base (which is less likely to happen).

    Here’s where things get complicated. Let’s imagine the usage of a hypothetical company like a Twilio or a PubNub (these are just presented for example, this is not to assert whether they do or ever have used MongoDB). Imagine they use MongoDB and provide APIs on top of their core service. Would this be considered a fair usage? They do provide a service and make money by using database APIs and offering additional/different APIs on top of it. At what point is the implementation far enough from the original?

    Fair and balanced take, overall. Even sympathizes with why Mongo did it, even if not in agreement with the ultimate decision.

    AWS is not breaking any rules here, but folks need to seriously look at it from a long term sustainability model and not necessarily go with AWS.

    1. Re:ScyllaDB's CEO has the best take on it by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AWS is not breaking any rules here, but folks need to seriously look at it from a long term sustainability model and not necessarily go with AWS.

      So they are not violating the license at all, but AWS is bad because reasons? It's not the fault of AWS that the Mongo people have no way to make money off their product. If Mongo needed money they shouldn't have released it under the very free software terms that allowed AWS to use so freely.

      Seems they should have released the product product under a proprietary license if they wanted to exert all this control. But by doing that Mongo would have lost all the phoney marketing about how they are this great open source company.

    2. Re:ScyllaDB's CEO has the best take on it by reg · · Score: 2

      AWS is not breaking any rules here

      Actually they are. Under the current state of Oracle v. Google it is a copyright violation to reimplement an API. AWS might be granted a fair use exemption by a court, but they might not (as Google currently has not for the Java APIs), and until they are, they should be assumed to be copyright pirates.

      I'm glad MongoDB has done this though... Their business is going to be dead in months, if not weeks, and it means others will not try this type of nonsense. While I prefer BSD type licenses, I understand the point of the GPL in wanting people to contribute back. What MongoDB is doing is going a step further and trying to prevent their software from being used, even if it has not been modified. They want the best of both worlds: the kudos of open source and the money of enterprise licenses and they are going to end up with neither.

  5. Both parties made a good point. All fine now. by ffkom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So MongoDB Inc. says they want to have money from companies that host sell the service of of hosting their database for others, and those companies say "thanks, but no thanks, we'll rather use a different database, then".

    That's a very simple decision both parties have the right to take, and it's all good now.

    I remember when the company I work for had to decide whether to use RHEL or another Linux distribution, and since we deemed RHEL way too expensive for the little added value they offer, we went on to use CentOS (on thousands of machines). That was a similar situation where seller and potential buyer concluded their respective valuations were just too different for a deal.

  6. I don't know where my sympathy could lie... by HerculesMO · · Score: 3

    AWS has been historically ripping off open source projects, forking them, and building new products without any attribution or support. The premise that they are the best cloud provider is kind of tainted to me, since they aren't building anything from scratch but rather, taking the work of thousands of volunteers and incorporating it into a paid for service. Examples would be in addition to DocumentDB (an ironic name since Azure called their NoSQL offering that first), Redshift, Maria, and even their hypervisor.

    Then you have Mongo who builds a product and markets it like it's the cure to cancer, and early on had a lot of success in convincing people they needed it (they mostly don't -- read up about Diaspora when you find time). Now that they are in the position of being outed for their proprietary connection interface (which is what makes AWS offerings compatible) they are changing the licensing. I don't think Red Hat's move hurts them as much as people don't want to maintain a fucking Mongo cluster any more.

    So who do I feel sorry for? Fuck both of them. Azure and GCP are better cloud providers anyway -- Azure for the enterprise, GCP for 'startups' that don't need the enterprise tooling. If you start your business on AWS it's because you ride the bandwagon either have enough money to burn, or are stupid.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
  7. Seems their sales and marketing... by jabberw0k · · Score: 2

    ...wasn't Web Scale.

  8. There are two ways to monetize by Solandri · · Score: 2
    You can monetize by giving customers what they want. If your product fulfills their needs, they will gladly pay you for it.

    Or you can monetize by entrapping your customers and charging them excessively. This works (at least it does for the seller) if you have a monopoly or near-monopoly (e.g. cable companies). But if you don't, it just makes your customers flee and switch to someone else's product. That's what we seem to be seeing here.

    While coding as a hobby and helping projects as a philanthropy work is very good, long term stable projects need continuous funding.

    Another thing long term stable projects need is a way to keep tabs on what customers want. What new features were helpful and should take priority? What changes were made that actually annoyed customers rather than helped them?

    I haven't seen open source address that, when it's the most important thing you lose when you make a project open source instead of pay software. With pay software, the amount customers are willing to pay for your product signals to you how much they like or dislike what you're doing. It creates a direct positive feedback loop - you add something customers want, more of them buy your product, creating a greater incentive for you to add more things customers want, making more of them want to buy your product, etc. That it also solves the funding problem is just gravy.

  9. New conflict for open source for profit companies by FeelGood314 · · Score: 2

    Up until 5 years ago I could make an open source project and make money off it by providing services. Engineering liked this because they felt safe that they weren't locked into a single vendor who might go bankrupt. Accounting liked the word free even if the service costs eventually cost more. The model seemed good for everyone.

    Then came AWS. The software users are willing to pay for something they feel is tangible, computing time, storage and support. AWS is amazing for all three but then AWS became the support for the open source projects. The end customer started paying AWS for support and not the companies developing the open source project. Also AWS support is far better than what any single open source company can offer. The open source financing model for things like MongoDB went from workable to impossible in just a few years.

  10. Making money from open source requires funding by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Others have posted plenty of long-term stable open source projects with no direct funding to the project. So what's different about MongoDB? The MongoDB company, which is trying to make money from the project. *Making money* from open source requires that someone pay money, for something.

    Plenty of open source projects work fine without anyone funding the project in any significant way - a developer who wants or needs a feature codes it, and makes a pull request. That developer might be at work or at home, but nobody pays the project anything.

    The question is how can the Mongo company get money from someone. There are many options. An open source project called Moodle has an interesting method. Their project page lists companies who provide Moodle services - hosted copies, custom development, training, etc. "Official Moodle partners", I think they are called. Those companies are allowed to use the Moodle trademark in their marketing if they want to, and they pay a percentage of revenue for being listed as an official partner.

  11. Pawn by chriswaco · · Score: 2

    Mongo just pawn in game of life.