(edit: typo)
It's an AGPL + AWS-is-killing-our-support/monitoring/ops-business license.
If I found a bug, and was adventurous to fix it, I can still open a JIRA and submit a PR to the project ...
The license is no longer OSI approved, so how do you know what you're allowed or not allowed to do?
How do you know that what's keeping AWS from using it isn't also creating a problem from you?
Have you consulted with a lawyer?
That's one benefit of using actual Open Source. You have a definition that all licenses have to comply with, such that developers know exactly the set of freedoms that's common between all of them.
Once you step out of that definition, you're on your own. So you know, I wouldn't take legal advice from random people on HN, you might run into problems.
As you can see, "open source" give s only half of those freedoms: to study code, it is not mandadory that you actually can modify it.
So, not all opens source software is free. Check out licence comparison and approvals page at Wikipedia.[3]
[1] https://www.fsf.org/ [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...
At the same time, we see a MongoDB example: a software, which definitely is open source, but also definitely is non-free.
Free software: free for modification, expansion or forking. Possibly free for profit (BSD license)
Source Available: Source is available but under restrictions. Locked room source viewing under NDA to confirm there aren't vulnerabilities for example.
Source-available: You can view the source, perhaps freely, but can't modify or release your modifications.
To what end? Why should we use a fork that's supported by a few people when we can still use the Community Edition that's from the horse's mouth? The idea of forking things for the fun of it actually perpetuates the problem that we already have with OSS. We want to get things for free, use them to make money, but still expect support for new features and bug fixes. This is worse when someone does this in their 'free time'.
Let's discuss the merits of forking from when it was open source. Percona has a fork, or is it not fit for purpose as they also adopted the SSPL thing?
Wait, how has a fork of MongoDB also adopted MongoDB's evil license? How are they able to take contributions from MongoDB and package them under the same license? Do they share the source code internally, or do they upstream changes that are in the open?
> Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out.
Isn't restricting Amazon and others from profiting from their efforts part of figuring out this business model?
> But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, lock in, etc.
Did MongoDB sell you their product as open-source? Which specific product? Was it the Community database, or the Enterprise one? Your argument lacks substance, because you're responding to someone who's asking why people are moving to another closed source product, one whose source code you can't even inspect.