Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanistbot | Hacker News Reader

No, in the 1990s when the "free software" part of the movement was far stronger and trying to build an entire alternative computing stack on strongly copyleft principles, it was certainly not in Microsoft's interest. From a corporate shareholder perspective, it was a massive threat and risk. The GPL was originally intentionally written to be the kind of "cancer" that Balmer feared, spreading to anything that used components of it.

In the past few decades, the part of the movement that has become far more popular is the very corporate-friendly, weakly-licensed side. Especially in an era of cloud computing, you can take whatever volunteers from an MIT-licensed open source product make, build whatever you want to with it, and not release the modifications or give back to the project's developers in any way. From a corporate shareholder perspective, what's not to love?

View on HN

Microsoft is only open source friendly right now because Satya Nadella thinks the future is the cloud, and I would guess that the majority of software running in Azure is open-source. You have to look no further than .Net Core. Microsoft's attempt at allowing their developers to write code that runs on something other than a Windows server/PC.

I would guess they still don't like open-source; they are just doing whatever they can to support their cloud business.

It's simpler than that: the desktop OS has become irrelevant, Google is a big threat to Office (assuming they will finally get their heads down, iron out the kinks and invest heavily into Sheets). The bulk of the home users out there now run their OS with one goal: to start up their browser. Desktop software is a thing that still exists in the business realm but there too cloud based services are making huge inroads.

So the future is the cloud, but not Azure, that's just a hosting facility which MS can't complete concede to Google and AWS from a paranoia perspective. But Docs hits them where it hurts, and if it gets any better then outlook->gmail and office->gsuite becomes a real threat.

Office is still making MS billions. Even home users are buying O365. Besides that, Azure has three times the market share of GCP and most major enterprises don’t trust Google’s competence enough to trust their infrastructure to GCP.

Actually it's not as simple as that. Office is still making billions because of inertia in some cases.

I have 5 Office 2019 licenses at home because my family is used to it, they're using it and happy; however I work in a big, continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive. No one is using Microsoft Office or any other desktop office software and, it works.

Lines are not that clear cut anymore.

> continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive

Are you happy with the responsiveness of Google Docs? For me once the spreadsheet exceeds a certain level of complexity, it feels really sluggish, and I feel like I'm constantly wasting microseconds while in the desktop counterpart I could have it done already. Sure, the sharing function is great, but as someone accustomed to working quickly, I'm sorry to say GD still doesn't offer a smooth experience on more complex sheets.

I'm generally working with docs and in some meetings the time difference is 8 hours we (from nearly every country from US to Greece) connect to the same doc as 10+ people and change small details continuously and it works.

I also use some sheets designed as multi-page input forms and it works well though, we don't collaborate on them real time.

I'm using Firefox with a 16M/1M ADSL connection BTW.

We have statistics that show otherwise.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-gsuite-idUSKBN1F...

Many companies may need the features and integration of Microsoft's suite with other Microsoft and third party tools for various reasons or just because they like the colors. I personally have no problem with that, and I didn't mean to contradict with this.

My comments are just for my point of view and my experience. I'm in no position to talk for the whole landscape TBH.

No for profit “likes” open source. They just open source the parts that don’t put them at a competitive disadvantage. You don’t see sang major corporation open sourcing their core software.

Can't you even do this with GPL code really? Unfortunately they didn't predict the cloud specifically. The GPL seems to only enforce that you cannot distribute modified versions of some software without also publishing the modified source code. If your modified GPL software only ever runs on your cloud infra and you don't share the binary, did you break the GPL?

You're correct, this scenario is why the AGPL was written. A lot of companies allow the use of GPL software but forbid the use of AGPL software.

Yeah, fixing that issue is what's good about the SSPL.

You misspelled AGPL, which is an actual open source license, not a legally-unenforceable minefield.

The SSPL is probably the strongest copyleft license in existence. The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. I think the common consensus on the SSPL is utterly incorrect, and MongoDB was right to use it.

> ... the strongest copyleft license ...

So what? That simply means rights are passed down. The problem with the SSPL was never that; it's that the rights that _were_ passed down are _legally impossible_ to fulfill, rendering the whole point of copyleft moot.

> The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now.

The criticisms against the GPL-ed works were about collaboration, not use. The problem with the SSPL is that I cannot legally use SSPL-ed works, in any way.

In simpler, analogical, terms: the GPL was designed to be "viral", but the SSPL was designed to be a minefield. Viruses can be harmless; minefields deny combatants, civilians, and peaceful inhabitants alike, forever.

Any GPL-ed software could be used without any restrictions on _how_ you use it. Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it. So much for copyleft.

----

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-...

https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments...

> Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it.

This is clearly not the case. Given a) the text of the license itself, and b) the fact that people still use MongoDB.

I think what you meant to say was “I cannot provide MongoDB as a service without open sourcing the rest of what I use directly to provide that service”. In other words, if I want to sell the usage of software which I don’t have the copyright to(remember, open source software may be free, but it’s still owned by somebody), then I have to give my source away as well. It doesn’t say “Thou shalt not compete,” the way the commons clause does. You can still provide Mongo as a service. You can still do anything you want with the software, but you might have to open source the rest of your stack.

Honestly, it’s not like Mongo didn’t have a lawyer look at the license (ie write the thing). If it was as horrrible and perilous as you say, they couldn’t use it because all the lawyers of all the other companies who use Mongo would get up in arms.

The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source software, which if you really care about that, then why do you care how “closed source” Mongo chose to be?

Minor nitpick:

> b) the fact that people still use MongoDB.

Just because people are using something doesn’t mean they’re doing so legally.

> ... the text of the license itself ...

I'd like to refer you again to the three links I cited in my parent post.

> ... the fact that people still use MongoDB

That is no basis for legality. If we're to use popularity as a measure, I'd refer to my classic argument about the popularity of competing religions that each denounce the other.

> I think what you meant to say was ...

No. As I've been saying all along in this thread, the license is legally-unenforceable. But you seem to be insistent on this other point, so I'll take the bait, for now, and hopefully I'll do a good enough job of illustrating my point this time.

> "I cannot provide MongoDB as a service without open sourcing the rest of what I use directly to provide that service"

1. "open sourcing" != releasing under the SSPL, which is what's demanded by the SSPL. The SSPL is not an open source license.

2. "... use directly to provide that service": this falls under contract law, not copyright law. Licenses fall under copyright law, not contract law. Licenses dictating terms beyond the scope of the copyrighted work, which is what the SSPL does, is copyright abuse and legally invalid. Copyleft licenses, including the GPL family, work strictly within copyright law; the terms they dictate apply only to the copyrighted work. Yes, derivatives of copyrighted work fall under the same copyright. No, "... use directly to provide that service" does not qualify as derivative work and thus does not fall under the copyright of the original work.

> ... didn’t have a lawyer look at the license (ie write the thing).

Lawyers across the world write legal briefs, notices, claims, affidavits, contracts etc. and lose all the time. Simply being written by a lawyer does not make something valid or correct.

> If it was as horrrible and perilous as you say, they couldn’t use it because all the lawyers of all the other companies who use Mongo would get up in arms.

Most users of MongoDB do not do carry out due diligence before using it anyway, or, historically, MongoDB wouldn't have had as many users in the first place. For a neutral example: companies and institutions across the world use pirated works all the time, and not because they actively want to tempt legal trouble.

> The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source software ...

This is not how open source licenses work — open source licenses do not confer ownership of copyright by mere usage — so I don't know what your point is. Perhaps you were confused by how MongoDB has in the past demanded (and probably still does) copyright transfer before accepting contributions from outside, but, I assure you, that has nothing to do with open source licensing.

>"... use directly to provide that service": this falls under contract law, not copyright law. Licenses fall under copyright law, not contract law. Licenses dictating terms beyond the scope of the copyrighted work, which is what the SSPL does, is copyright abuse and legally invalid. Copyleft licenses, including the GPL family, work strictly within copyright law; the terms they dictate apply only to the copyrighted work. Yes, derivatives of copyrighted work fall under the same copyright. No, "... use directly to provide that service" does not qualify as derivative work and thus does not fall under the copyright of the original work.

I think that there's some room here.

The links that you gave had two examples, the Lasercomb case and the Sandisk case. The SSPL isn't like either of those.

From your first link: > For example, in Lasercomb, the license agreement required the licensee to > agree not to develop a competitive computer-aided design program for 99 > years. Lasercomb America v. Reynolds. 911 F.2d 970, 15 USPQ2d 1846 (4th > Cir. 1990). In Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical > Ass'n 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) the AMA licensed “CPT” health care > codes (in which the AMA claimed a copyright) on a condition that the > licensee not use any other such competing codes. In Assessment > Technologies v. WIREdata. 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003), the copyright > holder tried to limit the licensee’s access to the licensee’s own data > stored using the software. This defense is almost always applied to > prevent a copyright holder from leveraging its copyright to impose > anti-competitive practices.

In other words, what we're looking at here is, "Now that you have accepted our license terms, you can't build a competing software, with no out" What the SSPL says (paraphrasing) is "If you can't offer our product as SaSS on an SSPL stack, then you can't offer it (see 12. No Surrender of Others Freedom)." It doesn't say, "by using our software, you are not allowed to build a competing product."

Let's look at SanDisk:

>SanDisk had a patent licensing program that required any licensee to provide a grant-back license to any subsequently-developed patents in the same field of use. Two courts examined SanDisk's program under both the antitrust and patent misuse angles.

In other words, SanDisk said, "if you use our license, we can use anything else in this space that you license." MongoDB is not saying, "now that you have licensed Mongo, you MUST SSPL regardless of whether you are currently using Mongo." Again, point 12 comes into play here. You are allowed to simply /not/ use Mongo. You have an out. The requirement of having a stack under SSPL or compatible license is a precondition for being allowed to provide Mongo as a service, not a limitation of what you can do after the fact. In other words, if the company sued over SSPL can't or won't release their stack, then they just can't provide Mongo as a service. That is, I think an enforceable outcome within the bounds of copyright: "if you do X, you can't use our copyrighted material." Thus I think your point of the SSPL being unenforceable is incorrect. Of course, this is interpretation, IANAL, and we won't truly know the result of this until it hits a court.

>This is not how open source licenses work — open source licenses do not confer ownership of copyright by mere usage — so I don't know what your point is.

You've misunderstood me. I mean that providers lose the ability to use closed source code in the providing of the service. The statement you were quoting was said with the presumption that "you" (in the general sense) were the provider of the service, who also owned the copyright to said closed source code used to provide said service, and that the thing lost was the ability to keep that software closed-source.

>SSPL is not an open-source license

What, because some committee says it isn't? Very well, open-source in the colloquial sense, as in "I can read the source code, modify it, and run it if I wish."

You seem to be misinterpreting legal terms again:

> Now that you have accepted our license terms ...

> "now that you have licensed ...

That is not how licenses work. Licenses cannot be forced on either party, nor can they force terms after being granted; that'd be extortion. Neither Lasercomb nor SanDisk forced their licenses or subsequent terms on their licensees, nor am I alleging (as you seem to paraphrase) that Mongo does.

The misunderstanding you seem to have is that a license term such as "If you agree to this license, you MUST ..." can be interpreted as "Now that you have accepted this license, you MUST ...". It can't. All three of Lasercomb, SanDisk, and MongoDB's SSPL use the former and not the latter.

> You are allowed to simply /not/ use Mongo. You have an out.

As did the licensees of Lasercomb and SanDisk to simply not use the respective licensed works. That did not stop those two licensors from being in legal jeopardy, and from their licenses being invalid. And when a license is invalid, _any and all_ use of the copyrighted work under that license becomes copyright infringement.

> then they just can't provide Mongo as a service.

And here you introduce another kernel of the problem with the SSPL. It does not define what a "Service" is, leaving it vague and so open to interpretation, that MongoDB Inc. can change their mind later and sue even users not providing MongoDB-as-a-service. This inability (or omission) of the license to answer the question "What is a service" leaves me as a potential user in a very gray area. This has all been discussed many times over [0].

The only safe play is to not use the copyrighted work at all. Which leaves, as I say above, "the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it."

> You've misunderstood me. I mean that providers lose the ability to use closed source code in the providing of the service. The statement you were quoting was said with the presumption that "you" (in the general sense) were the provider of the service, who also owned the copyright to said closed source code used to provide said service, and that the thing lost was the ability to keep that software closed-source.

You said, "The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source software". One (owning the copyright) has nothing to do with the other (keeping the software closed-source), so I don't know why you would include the former if all you wanted to say was the latter.

> What, because some committee says it isn't?

No, because it does not meet the industry-accepted definition.

> open-source in the colloquial sense, as in "I can read the source code, modify it, and run it if I wish."

1. You can't just "run it if I wish" as you please; and

2. That is NOT the definition of open-source; that is the definition of shared-source, or source-available. If MongoDB wanted to make their source available under those terms, they should have, instead of trying to abuse the term 'open source'. If you want to use a piece of software under shared-source terms, feel free, but please don't try to jam it to others as if that's open source, because such twisting of terms harms the industry.

----

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116

>12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

>If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot use, propagate or convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not use, propagate or convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

The important bit here is:

>If you cannot use, propagate or convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not use, propagate or convey it at all.

That is what I mean to say when I say you have an out. As in, rather than SSPL'ing your whole stack, you can simply STOP using MongoDB, or any other SSPL'd software. Once you stop using MongoDB, then you are free not to SSPL the rest of your stack under clause 12. Under the SanDisk and Lasercomb cases, you couldn't simply un-agree to the license, because it was a software purchase, or a patent license respectively, but the SSPL is a license that is validated and invalidated and renewed automatically (see clause 8: Termination), and for which the acceptable, enforceable outcome of any litigation is always "stop providing the copyrighted work as a service".

>You can't just "run it if I wish" as you please

Name one thing I can't do with it. No, providing it as a service does not count, as I can do that, provided I manage the service with other SSPL'd code.

> Under the SanDisk and Lasercomb cases, you couldn't simply un-agree to the license, because it was a software purchase, or a patent license respectively, but the SSPL is a license that is validated and invalidated and renewed automatically (see clause 8: Termination), and for which the acceptable, enforceable outcome of any litigation is always "stop providing the copyrighted work as a service".

So what? The automatic termination of a license doesn't make it valid, nor does it stop it from being invalid. Even in the presence of the termination clause, the SSPL asserts rights over works it does not cover. _That_ is copyright abuse, exactly like in the Lasercomb and SanDisk cases. The fact that those licenses differed in other areas does not affect this fact.

But yeah, thank you for bringing up the termination clause, as it further strengthens my point that using an SSPL-licensed work is like entering a legal minefield. As I say in my parent comment, if tomorrow MongoDB Inc. decides to interpret "Service" differently than today, invoking the termination clause, suddenly I would be forced to stop using the software. This mere possibility makes it unsafe for me to use the software now.

>> 1. You can't just "run it if I wish" as you please; and

>> 2. That is NOT the definition of open-source; that is the definition of shared-source, or source-available.

> Name one thing I can't do with it. No, providing it as a service does not count, as I can do that, provided I manage the service with other SSPL'd code.

At this point, I'm beginning to suspect you're being pedantic and willfully ignoring practical realities. You're also being selective and ignoring the rest of my argument: merely being able to run your modifications under certain conditions does NOT make something 'Open Source'. And, please, read the rest of my argument, which I reproduce here for your convenience: "If MongoDB wanted to make their source available under those terms, they should have, instead of trying to abuse the term 'open source'. If you want to use a piece of software under shared-source terms, feel free, but please don't try to jam it to others as if that's open source, because such twisting of terms harms the industry"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com