That said I dislike MongoDB but for various other reasons.
Then you've misunderstood what "open source" means. The term "open source" was invented specifically to describe software with the following properties (among others) [1]:
~~~
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
[...]
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
~~~
Any software which doesn't meet those criteria isn't open-source.
[1] https://opensource.org/osd
(edit: formatting)
I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa. But it seems to me with the above definition that all things which are open source must then be free although all things that are free still do not need to be open source.
on edit: clarified I was referring to HN in first use of the term "site"
Following the "paper trail", the chronology is:
1. the "Open Source Definition", last modification in 2007, is based on "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", I suppose v1.1
2. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.1 was ratified in 2004, and is based on v1.0
3. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.0 was ratified in 1997
so ultimately, in strict terms (but that's arguable), the "Open Source Definition" is newer.
The culture for free open source software (and its benefits) was prevalent. But by the 70s companies we’re changing their attitude about this IP. I’m a reaction to increased restrictions Richard Stallman founded the GNU project in 1983.
Is there an Other World theory where this was not the case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...
as I am not a prescriptivist in language as a general rule it may be that I should alter my usage of the term to follow OSI usage, but then I feel that a useful term is needed for software where you can inspect the source as needed - perhaps inspectable source.
People have used the term 'source-available':
> I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition
> I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa.
In this perspective, the history, as reported, matches: originally, there was a "free software" concept and movement (the formal definition was given in 1986), then, in 1998, the "open source" term was coined.
Based on Stallman's critic to the Open Source ideas (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....):
> For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately.
The parent's doubt has verified grounds.
However, there's confusion, because it seems that the "Open Source Definition" is _now_ closer to "Free software" than it was when Stallman expressed his opinion: by that time, Open Watcom qualified as "Open source", but nowadays, based on the "Open Source Definition", it wouldn't.
We’re not talking about the proverbial ‘historical house in private hands’—can we look around at this excellent example of early Frank Lloyd Wright house in Chicago. We’re talking about ownership and control for profit.
Mongo wants to wiggle out of the bind they find themselves in. Does anyone else feel this discussion is starting to feel like ‘workshopping’ the legal definitions entrepreneurs and coders can both agree on?
Maybe the parent is asking as a curiosity—Isn’t there also a second origin story about inspection without rights?
But, in the context of the original post’s topic of Mongo and the pickle they’re in, I reserve my normally generous nature, lest I find myself the cuckolded against my own interests.
There seems to be a curious spate of discussions lately about legal use, copyright, and trademark.
Google patenting some machine learning techniques [1] here on HN.
On a Philosophy Podcast I listen to there is an interview with on a legal scholar on his work defending plagiarism [2]
And for the record I am an ardent advocate of FOSS. I believe Mongo is in a pickle, and they should do the right thing to honor the spirit of OSS. And if they can’t, then they should surrender the property to someone who can.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20863515
[2]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/elucidations-a-univers...
There are certainly ideological differences between the two; but I think it's primarily in terms of focus. The FSF primarily aims at promoting "software freedom" as an end in itself; RMS claims that it is unethical to give people software but prevent them from sharing or modifying it. As such, they much prefer to use copyright law to promote "software freedom", by things like the GPL and AGPL. But (as I understand it), since more permissive licenses like BSD or MIT licenses do allow the "four freedoms", they consider them "free software" (albeit second-class, because unlike copyleft licenses, they don't fight to keep derivatives "free").
"Open source" was meant to focus more on the benefits of the open, collaborative software development model, without denigrating proprietary software; and, in particular, to be more palatable to large companies. As such, permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache, &c) are considered just as valid as copyleft licenses (GPL, APL, &c).
But saying, "You're not allowed to run a service using our software because it might compete with us" is Right Out.
In a few occasions I see that I need to alter the library, if I do not have the rights to do that then I would probably end up dropping the library as being inadequate to the task.
In some occasions I have seen that I would like to get rid of the library but I am generally not allowed to by other business decisions, in those cases I have always been able to find some hack that allows me to do what I need to even if it goes against the preconceptions of the used library. I then make extensive comments in my code explaining why, probably referring to the other solutions I would prefer to use and explaining why I was unable to do so.
Why? What do you do?