Downvoters, would you explain? I didn't think this was a controversial opinion: Mongo is now under a license that is not listed as Open Source, as defined at https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

If you care about using FOSS - as many companies do - MongoDB is no longer open for consideration.

For an enterprise scenario where the costs of remaining outweigh the costs of migrating this seems to me the clearest reason for doing so, and also likely why they skimped on their rationale ... in all likelihood they appeared to be nice juicy whale but turned out to be some form of shark.

Because there is no company behind PG, no one is loosing money if FANG get your app for free and build something around it. You should ask Redis, Grafana, Nginx ect ... if they're happy about super large company doing that kind of thing.

There are bunch of companies behind PG actually. From Fujitsu and EnterpriseDB to smaller ones like 2ndQuadrant, PostgresPro, CitusDB and many others.

Those companies did not create PG, the company behind Mongo did and does not want Google / AWS / MS to make a service using Mongo for free.

I'm glad that RedHat didn't feel that way when they were sponsoring kernel development, or that Netscape had panicked and locked down Netscape instead of opening it up, or that Sun had given Java a terrible license. Or Google and Kubernetes. LinkedIn and Kafka. Airbnb and Air Flow. I could keep going like this all day.

Mongo made a lot of money building a projects that runs on top of many other projects that were released as Free Software. Now they're upset that other people are building on top of Mongo in the same way.

So Redis, HAproxy, MongoDB, ect .. should feel good that nowdays multi-billion $ companies take your product and put more people on it that you do internally, sell it and give you nothing?

Explain to me how a startup of 10-20 people can compete against AWS once they grab what you're working on to make an AWS service?

Changes Mongo, Redis made to their licence were made to protected against those practices.

1. Redis — according to its creator — has always been, is, and will continue to be FOSS. Redis Labs did not create Redis, nor can they re-license it.

2. HAproxy is still GPLv2.

3. Redis Labs's CCL and MongoDB's SSPL are not open source licenses, but their purveyors sure do like to give off the impression that they are open source. If you want to keep your code proprietary, keep it proprietary. Don't pretend to be open source. If you are not okay with others using your work, even making money off of it, as long they adhere to the rules of the open source licence you used to license your work to them, then don't license your work to them under open source licenses, or don't cry foul when they use it under the terms of the license.

thanks for the note about redis... sounds like i should avoid any features that have been locked down (and consider alternatives).

That's great there is no one single company behind PostgreSQL in this sense. The model when many companies around PG do their own niche things based on PG, having their own business models, cooperating and collaborating to make PG better, as it is the base of their business, is rather fruitful and stable in the long term.

does this mean mongo is a liability insofar that there is a lock-in aspect?