Hi, thanks for checking it out and for the feedback. I added some of the most common currencies out there. I'll work on adding more. Re: Sales tax - I got the prices off apple[dot]com. I also saw the sales tax is not consistent across states in the US? I'll read into it again and at least add "excluding sales tax" tag for the US.
Anyone can provide Postgres, MySQL or other open source databases as a service.
For this reason, there are many providers to choose from, and there is a healthy amount of innovation and competition in the space. Prices are set by market and demand, as it should be.
And then there is MongoDB where only a handful of providers could negotiate a license, and the price is set by MongoDB Inc.
In my opinion this is by no means "fine" from a user perspective as we are talking about database software.
If anyone did freeriding, it is MongoDB Inc. who chose to freeride on the open source community for marketing purposes, before switching to SSPL.
I am not sure if any hate is warranted, but it is true that coming up with a new license which does not comply with open source licenses, and proceeding to call it open source definitely did not help to create sympathy.
There is nothing wrong with releasing something under a proprietary license but calling this license change "Doubling down on open source" is damaging.
It tends to be a spectrum, but the various, sometimes very different licenses adopted by the OSI still have something in common - the open source values laid out in the Open Source Definition. [1]
SSPL did not comply with this requirement, as it discriminate against specific users or use cases. I think it is in the interest of everyone to draw the line somewhere.
Open source licenses might be a spectrum but it's likely that the legal reality isn't. Like the famous double split experiment there's probably no spectrum and only a couple of buckets of legal validity.
It's a little more complicated than than just having to refrain from selling MongoDB services. There is a good page which summarizes the problem with SSPL. [1]
SSPL is crafted in a way that it very hard to tell whether you comply with the license or not, especially if you run it as part of a cloud hosted solution.
I mean, that's fundamentally what the website did. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However, without any justification for the belief the author apparently has, the author asserts you cannot even expose MongoDB's API as part of your own application within the terms of SSPL, and that is neither in the letter nor spirit of the license terms, which solely relates to selling the software in question (MongoDB here) as a service offering principally as itself.
The author, of course, relies on the claimed vagueness of the license as an excuse to take every claim to the most ridiculous extent possible, even though no reasonable person would believe anything claimed here, such as the suggestion that it might entail you release the source code for your computer's BIOS.
In a section with truly atrocious spelling and grammar, the author asserts that somehow this kills real competitors (even though real competitors would presumably have their own actual product offering, not just re-ship a product offered by the SSPL software developer at a predatory pricing rate only made possible through monopolist behavior). They then make the ridiculous claim that this entirely removes the ability for the customer to choose their cloud provider. Meanwhile, in the land of reality, between either forks or licensing agreements, there is plenty of competition, but the developers have an opportunity to sustain development instead of all of the profit being skimmed off by Amazon, who contributes nothing back and does none of the work. Having to raise their prices above the original developers' due to license fees, of course, doesn't even remove the value add for choosing AWS, where the benefits are bringing it into the same datacenter and platform as the rest of your other cloud needs.
The author then tries to villainize software companies using SSPL by pointing out how many thousands of employees and how many millions in revenue they have, without acknowledging that the sole benefactor of making SSPL look bad is Amazon, which brings in hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue and has over 1.5 million employees.
This train wreck is then finished up with their suggestions that these companies should just remain unsustainable and rely entirely on business models for open source we all know don't work very well.
I would say the author is arguably wasting their $10 a year domain registration on this garbage article, but considering the lack of public attribution present, I assume Amazon's paying for it.
You should speak to PayloadCMS guys. It can be mutually benefiting (publicity/more users/etc.). It needs Mongo, but if it works with Ferret backed by SQLite (and others) that would be game changer.
Awesome! This might be my new Sunday project once I'm done with the current one.
Mongo's sharding is nice but I'm really tired of their support. They force you to run smaller machines in the contract so they can charge more for # of nodes, and it adds complexity to your architecture so you're swayed into buying Atlas. I could replace it all with a few PG shards with bigger machines.
Yes this is one of the reasons we started FerretDB. Atlas is very easy to use, but it is nearly impossible to move away from later on, as there is no alternative (unless you are ready to rewrite your app). We think that most of its killer features, like easy sharding, can be done with Postgres and/or SQLite.
Just curious: what are your specific reasons for not liking the company behind MongoDB?