Tip 1: Don't freak. There are tons of dev jobs out there still despite the pandemic.
Tip 2: Take care of yourself. Job hunts are emotionally draining.
Tip 3: Watch this 4-hour workshop (split into 1-hour chunks) from OSCON last year. It's "Care & Feeding of a Healthy Job Hunt". It's a hiring manager (me) providing info on how to update your resume, write a cover letter, apply, interview, negotiate, etc. It's entirely free on Internet Archive:
My friend, the "what's done is done" was purely in reference to the fact that the license was submitted for approval belatedly (IMO). My statement in no way implied whether the license itself would be approved as it stands.
Now that the license has been submitted, folks can now analyse and discuss it, openly. Any decision on the license will spring from those discussions and the related actions (should any be needed) that MongoDB takes based on the feedback they receive.
The proper place for that feedback is on the discussion thread on the review mailing list. Statements on blogs and comments on Hacker News are good for helping to frame that feedback, but aren't well placed to be included in a cohesive conversation.
The Open Source Definition provides a single point of reference for what it means for a project to be "open source."
Licenses are submitted for approval by those who wish to prove that the license provides the benefits and freedoms assured by the Open Source Definition and therefore by open source.
Licenses that do not provide each benefit and freedom in that definition are not not approved and are not—literally by definition—open source.
MongoDB recognises the value that a consistent worldwide definition of open source provides to the entire software development ecosystem and is seeking approval for their license to show their support and respect for the definition.
Vice President of the Open Source Initiative here.
MongoDB submitted this new license for approval by OSI at the same time that they announced that they'd relicensed all of their code. We wish they'd started the process prior to the announcement, but what's done is done. The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE.
As the license review process only started this morning, there's no way to estimate how long the process will take. There also is no guarantee that the license will be found to obey the Open Source Definition, and therefore no guarantee that it will be approved.
Hopefully this will all be resolved soon, but there are far too many question marks around this license (and therefore also around any software using it) right now. It's probably best to limit your legal risk by not upgrading to an SSPL-licensed MongoDB at this point. The previous AGPL-licensed version should always be available.
Open source has no place addressing the question of business model, as open source is about what people can do with the SOFTWARE. It removes the barriers to creating a business around that software, and that's where its concerns with business stop (and always have). It's up to the owners of that business to learn how to RUN a business.
In summary: "Open source" is not a business model and is not concerned with them. For information and guidance on business models, check with Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan, and other reputable business publications.
Arguably the largest users of Redis—Amazon, Google, and Microsoft—are all among the many sponsors of the Open Source Initiative and each make immense contributions to free and open source software.
Redis Labs is not a sponsor (but is welcome to become one). Despite that, had they come to OSI looking for assistance with this issue we could have helped open discussions between them and their largest users. They did not ask us for help, to the best of my knowledge. Redis Labs' post does not mention what, if any, attempts they made to engage these large users and encourage more contributions before they made the decision to put this software under a proprietary license, and only implies that a lack of contributions was the motivator for the move.
Hi, Kevin. VM Brasseur from https://opensource.org here. It's disappointing to see FOSSA, which claims it exists to assist companies with open source management, publish and encourage use of a clause that very clearly removes projects from the pool of open source alternatives. To do so by using the word "Commons" in the title adds insult to injury and borders on wilful deception, removing software from the commons as it does.
I encourage FOSSA to contact the Open Source Initiative, Open Tech Strategies, or another reputable free/libre and open source organisation to find a better solution to whatever problem it is that the Commons Clause is intended to address.
Simple has many positions open across the company: Engineering (front end, back end, mobile), Ops, Data, Marketing, Product, more. Most of the positions are able to telecommute. Check out the list: