Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposal: Drop MongoDB who is no longer open source #4564

Open
pombredanne opened this issue Feb 22, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Proposal: Drop MongoDB who is no longer open source #4564

pombredanne opened this issue Feb 22, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@pombredanne
Copy link

@pombredanne pombredanne commented Feb 22, 2019

SUMMARY

MongoDB changed its license from the open source AGPL to a the proprietary SSPL in October 2018.
I suggest to drop using MongoDB and replace this with another database.

@bigmstone

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@bigmstone bigmstone commented Feb 22, 2019

@pombredanne Thanks for the proposal.

You can appreciate the considerable cost this would create - so this one is a bit tougher than, say, removing/changing a less pervasive library. I suspect one of the following to happen over the next couple of years:

  1. If MongoDB is negatively affected by the move and the move does not prevent cloud providers from moving forward (ala AWS w/ their 3.6 compatible DB offering) it might revert its decision
  2. If the community sees reason to keep the Mongo API going we could see a fork of the last available AGPL Licensed Mongo Version.
  3. No one will much care since SSPL is AGPL + one amendment that affects SaaS offerings OF the database.

The key phrase for me in the amendment is:

If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service...

So we will keep an eye on this as it progresses, but we're a small team with limited resources and right now I don't see the incentives aligned to change the database over unless we get that contributed from the community. Which would then take the discussion into another direction.

I won't close this for now as I think it would be interesting to gauge the community's interest.

Note: IANAL, so don't believe any interpretations of their license that I provided here.

@stale

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@stale stale bot commented May 23, 2019

Thanks for contributing to this issue. As it has been 90 days since the last activity, we are automatically marking is as stale. If this issue is not relevant or applicable anymore (problem has been fixed in a new version or similar), please close the issue or let us know so we can close it. On the contrary, if the issue is still relevant, there is nothing you need to do, but if you have any additional details or context which would help us when working on this issue, please include it as a comment to this issue.

@stale stale bot added the stale label May 23, 2019
@armab armab removed the stale label May 24, 2019
@stale

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@stale stale bot commented Nov 5, 2019

Thanks for contributing to this issue. As it has been 90 days since the last activity, we are automatically marking is as stale. If this issue is not relevant or applicable anymore (problem has been fixed in a new version or similar), please close the issue or let us know so we can close it. On the contrary, if the issue is still relevant, there is nothing you need to do, but if you have any additional details or context which would help us when working on this issue, please include it as a comment to this issue.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Nov 5, 2019
@armab armab added the feature label Feb 12, 2020
@stale stale bot removed the stale label Feb 12, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.