this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
361 points (97.6% liked)

Programming

19813 readers
832 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe we need a new movement (or revisit past ideas from the 70s) that focuses on ensuring the openness regarding freedoms of computing (๐Ÿ˜‰) that combat proprietary SaaS offerings? idk.

This is why OSS as an org needs a change IMO. Licenses like SSPLv1, where software can be supplied for free with options that allow a company to make money without risk of a cloud vendor snapping up their software (think Redis, MongoDB, etc) need a place at the table.

[โ€“] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Licenses like SSPLv1

The SSPL requires that all software used to deploy SSPL software is open sourced. If I deploy my software on Windows, do I have to provide the source code for Windows? What about the proprietary hardware drivers, or Intel Management Engine?

The SSPL is not the next generation of licenses, it is effectively unusable. And both Redis and Mongo, dual licensed their software as the SSPL, and a proprietary license โ€” effectively making their entire software proprietary.

make money without risk of a cloud vendor snapping up their software (think Redis, MongoDB, etc) need a place at the table.

Except Redis, and Mongo were making money. They had well valued, well earning SAAS offerings โ€” it's just that the offerings integrated into existing cloud vendors would be more popular (because vendor lock in). They just wanted more money, and were hoping that by going proprietary, they could force customers away from the cloud offers to themselves, and massively increase their revenue.. They did not get that.

Another thing is that it's not "stealing" Mongo/Redis' when cloud vendors offer SAAS's of Mongo/Redis. Mongo/Redis, and their SAAS offerings, are only possible because the same cloud vendors put more money than Mongo/Redis make yearly into Linux and other software that powers the SAAS offerings of Mongo/Redis, like Kubernetes. Without that software, Mongo/Redis wouldn't have a SAAS offering at all.

I definitely think that it's bad when a piece of software doesn't get any funding it needs to develop, especially when it powers much more modern software, like XZ. But Mongo/Redis weren't suffering from a lack of funding at all. They're just mad they had to share their toys, and tried to take them away. But it didn't even matter in the end.