back to article Licence to grill: A year on, MongoDB's Eliot Horowitz talks to The Reg about SSPL

A year after its controversial switch to the Server Side Public License (SSPL), and with new products livening up the summer, MongoDB remains unrepentant. The change was aimed at making vendors selling a service using the company's code share the source of applications used to run the service as well as any tweaks. The move …

  1. pan2008

    From the mongoDB website regarding RDBMS: "So if you decide, a few iterations into development, that you'd like to store customers' favorite items in addition to their addresses and phone numbers, you'll need to add that column to the database, and then migrate the entire database to the new schema."

    Really migrate my database!?I have never seen so many inaccuracies written on a website before.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. oliversalmon

      Re: Do you mean DynamoDB?

      DocumentDB is an AWS product, Azure's CosmosDB is the MS equivalent

  3. sbt

    They out-Stallmanned Stallman

    It's a pity there was so much FUD around this. I don't use these kinds of DBs, but I'm sympathetic to MongoDB's beef here. The cloud providers have been making out like bandits off the back of Free Software, without honouring the intent to keep software free, or the effect that contributors at least get paid in code. The GPL is showing its age in these cloudy times and if MongoDBs licence makes their product better and creates a more sustainable company to support it, good on 'em.

  4. disgruntled yank


    The article mentions triggers as "the potential database destroyers with which relational data jockeys would be familiar". I am familiar with triggers, though not particularly as database destroyers. The relational model is fine for describing valid states of a database, but does not provide saw what transitions are valid. Triggers are a sensible way to do this.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    MongoDB vs cloud providers

    When MongoDB initially complained about cloud providers, it was the Chinese operators who clearly do rely on MongoDB for their NoSQL implementations.

    Yet this article mentions AWS having implemented MongoDB API's on their DocumentDB and Microsofts CosmoDB - is this really about not giving back to the open-source community or just straight competition and the realities of having to deliver a competitive product?

    Or did MongoDB pin their hopes on AWS/Azure not competing and now realise their future doesn't just consist of providing DBaaS on top of AWS/Azure with the subsequent loss of revenue for all those who invested in their IPO?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like