Affero not harmful
Affero not harmful
Posted Feb 9, 2017 5:50 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Affero not harmful by ncm
Parent article: RethinkDB source relicensed, donated to the Linux Foundation
First, enterprise MongoDB has a special commercial license for the DATABASE itself. Not just for additional tools. Consequently, contributing to MongoDB requires copyright assignment to Mongo ( https://www.mongodb.com/legal/contributor-agreement ).
Next, let's talk about AGPL. It poorly defines what "derived works" actually are, just as regular GPL licenses. However, there are some guidelines (including from the FSF itself). In particular, if a program uses internal structures of another system, is tightly bound to it and works in the same address space then it's pretty certain that it's a derived work and GPL applies.
In case of MongoDB most real databases will have views, map/reduce queries and other code that fit these conditions perfectly. So their code can be considered a derived work of Mongo and will have to be disclosed as per AGPL if its output is used (for example) to render HTML pages.
This is clearly insane. So MongoDB has a public interpretation of the license that excludes normal database users from AGPL's reach. But they are free to rescind this interpretation at any moment - it won't be retroactive but any code running within future MongoDB versions won't be protected from AGPL.
And before people start telling that "but Mongo queries are just like C code being processed by GCC" - they are not. They are more comparable with GCC plugins and FSF's opinion is that they must be GPL.
Posted Feb 10, 2017 15:40 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Are they free? (I don't have a clue.) Or does the copyright assignment have clauses (like the FSF do) preventing the closure of the code?
The FSF can't close any code they've been given the copyright to, because part of the copyright transfer forbids it.
Cheers,
Posted Feb 10, 2017 18:15 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Feb 13, 2017 7:56 UTC (Mon)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (2 responses)
Enterprise customers do get a different license that gives them access to extra stuff they want. But none of that is necessary to use or to change and redistribute the code. As you note, Mongo specifically disclaim ownership of your "views" etc. So, what is not Free? That you can't take it proprietary, as you can with PosgreSQL? How are they different, in that way, from Red Hat?
Posted Feb 13, 2017 8:28 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
And I can't even find what RockDB is...
Fun fact, Mongo's license disclaimer actually can NOT be legally applied by their downstream forks.
Posted Feb 14, 2017 10:57 UTC (Tue)
by micka (subscriber, #38720)
[Link]
Affero not harmful
Wol
Affero not harmful
MongoDB's CLA gives Mongo unconditional rights to do anything they want with contributions.
Affero not harmful
Affero not harmful
Affero not harmful
(I just recently had a dive into these kind of databases)
Those are key-values DB AFAIK (while mongodb is a document database).