https://seekingalpha.com/news/3441502-mongodb-backs-unpopula…
It looks like they are going back to the old license they changed in October.
So the big question is, are they doing this because they are starting to see sales and/or usage suffer because of backlash from the license change?
Jim
No, they are keeping the license unchanged for now. They merely read the tea leaves and decided that the current license would be unlikely to get approved as open source by OSI and so withdrew the license from consideration by OSI. They plan to explore a modified license at a later date which would be approvable, but it seems clear that they will be unlikely to go that route unless they can still come up with something which meets their need for control.
Tam is correct.
Full message.
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o…
Thus, in order to be respectful of the time and efforts of the OSI board
and this list’s members, we are hereby withdrawing the SSPL from OSI consideration.
In the meantime, current and future versions of MongoDB Community will continue to be offered under the SSPL.
Thanks for clarifying.
Why do they think it’s important to be classified as open source from the OSI board?
Thanks,
Jim
For the record, Tamhas, the Gaelic version of Thomas, is pronounced with the mh as a glottal stop, i.e., Ta’as, so Tam is not really a very good shortening. 
Open Source is … or at least has been popular … so, all else being equal one is likely to see broader acceptance if the software is considered open source. But, Mongo is not the only company wrestling these days with how to call something open source and yet still maintain control. In particular, it is irksome and problematic for a different company to make revenue from your open source product when you are not making revenue from that use.
But, Mongo is not the only company wrestling these days with how to call something open source and yet still maintain control.
“yet still maintain control” = charging for it, and preventing others from charging for it.
I have no issues with Mongo charging for their own software. They have a right to get paid for their hard work.
However, it doesn’t meet the definition of “Open Source” as defined by OSI. https://opensource.org/LicenseReview012019
In the context of Linux, the idea of open source seemed like a really refreshing sort of new world concept in which a bunch of people cooperated to produce a really high quality software far, far beyond the capabilities of any one person to produce and it was all free! Unfortunately for that dream, but perhaps fortunately in other ways, people figured out ways to make money based on that open source software, e.g., Red Hat and this has progressed to the point where there are lots of companies whose primary interest is making money and not having to pay to develop the software. Consequently, we have companies who would like to be part of the open software movement shifting to licenses which are less open in order to protect their revenue stream since they are, after all, a business.
Consequently, we have companies who would like to be part of the open software movement shifting to licenses which are less open in order to protect their revenue stream since they are, after all, a business
Just to be clear, most of these companies make revenue by providing support and not selling the software license. A very minor point, but significant nonetheless.
The challenge for MDB is, AWS is going to walk away with the support revenue, not licensing revenue.
Why do they think it’s important to be classified as open source from the OSI board?
They want to make their software available for people to try out and get hooked (the “land” part of “land and expand”). They want to make money once someone has chosen them for use in production, yet make it free and easy for experimentation and evaluation.
Many Linux and BSD distributions only allow open source (as the OSI classifies it) in their core distributions. That means it’s either impossible or more tedious to get a pre-built package that works with the distribution’s package management system. (You end up having to build and install it yourself, which means you are now responsible for being aware of and installing any updates.)
Plus, “open source” is synonymous with “good guy” in the open source world. If you’re not open source (using the OSI definition), then you must be “bad.” In that respect, it’s an image/reputation thing.
At least a couple of major distributions had already pulled them due to concern about the license. So this latest announcement shouldn’t have much affect on the stock (famous last words…).
Apple had a similar difficulty when they first stepped into the world of open source. But they were a big enough player that OSI acceptance was “nice to have,” but could be ignored when it was inconvenient.
-Mark