Hacker News Reader

Comment by zokier | Hacker News Reader

The license is clearly based on (A)GPL which is copyrighted by FSF, and has the following notice: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

Does that mean that MongoDB is now infringing on FSF copyright of the license text itself?

View on HN

The FSF separately and specifically grants permission to modify their licenses under certain conditions (change the name and references to GNU, and remove the preamble unless you have permission): https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL

FSF has historically let others make new licenses based on its own as long as they name it in a way that is not likely to be confused with any of the GNU licenses.

My guess is they aren't subject to the license terms because they are the copyright holders. They could do anything with the source code.

This thread is discussing the content of the new license, which is based on the content of the GNU GPLv3 license.

SSPL is based on the GPL, not the AGPL, so no, the SSPL isn't itself a copyright infringement.

BTW, check out the "What specifically is different between the GPL and this new license and what will it be called?" section of the FAQ:

https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license...

> SSPL is based on the GPL, not the AGPL, so no, the SSPL isn't itself a copyright infringement

I don't see how the distinction makes a difference here, both have the same clause about changing not being allowed.

Oh, sorry, that was a non-sequitur. The actual reason is that text doesn't mean you can't modify them and create new licenses, it means you can't modify them and still call them A/GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL

I've written a blog about this: https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodb... Spoiler: It's a big nono Disclosure: I'm ScyllaDB co-founder

Reply on news.ycombinator.com