Open Stack

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 08:44:39AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Great, some specifics from Yahoo!'s Open Source Director, Gil Yehudo:
> 
>   http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/030510.html
> 
> The issue is that the "intimate data communication" language is read by
> some as meaning applications which use an Apache licensed client library
> (aka driver) may not actually be considered a separate work and are then
> subject to the terms of the AGPLv3.

I do not understand this part of Gil Yehuda's argument -- an
Apache-licensed driver is per se engaged in "intimate data
communication" with MongoDB?

> Also, that while MongoDB, Inc. themselves say:
> 
>   http://www.mongodb.org/about/licensing/
>   http://blog.mongodb.org/post/103832439/the-agpl
> 
>   "we promise that your client application which uses the database is a
>   separate work"
> 
> the license is what's important, particularly when you think about what
> could happen in the future if MongoDB is acquired by a company with
> different objectives.

But that statement is part of the license as to the code that exists
now, and if the issue is concern about future versions, well, the
upstreams of other library and non-library dependencies might someday
alter their licensing too. Experience if anything suggests that
present-day AGPL code tends to later on become Apache-licensed.

> IANAL, and I've spent 10 seconds thinking about this ... but the stance
> that Marconi or Ceilometer is a "dynamically linked subprogram" that
> MongoDB is "specifically designed to require" (by any means), seems
> highly questionable.

I have to say "highly questionable" is an understatement to me; it is
preposterous to suppose that MongoDB, the thing that is AGPL-licensed,
is "specifically designed to require" Marconi or Ceilometer or any
part of them. By all means I encourage Gil to come up with a different
theory of AGPL interpretation to explain why there is a problem here,
but this one won't fly.
 
> (To repeat my intent here - we need to dig into the details of these
> concerns because, if OpenStack makes important policy decisions based on
> these concerns, we are least lending some credence to the concerns. If
> they are completely indefensible, I don't think we should do it.)

I entirely agree. 

 - RF