Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:03:17PM -0500, John Harris wrote:
> Even taken to an extreme, it would likely be sufficient to link to Fedora's 
> sources on any software used to provide MongoDB as a service, assuming their 
> service itself is free software.

As I understand it, the requirement is not just to make the source code
available, but to make it available _under the terms of this license_.

As suggested, please take further dicussion to le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
(cc'd).

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Rex Dieter]

John Harris wrote:

> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:32:38 PM EST Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

>> For the last time, please move this to the legal list, a blog, or your
>> own tweet stream. This isn't the list for non-lawyers to discuss how they
>> think law, licenses and contracts 'work' just because it looks just like
>> COBOL.
> 
> Please do not suggest non-free platforms such as Twitter.

not to be harsh, but...

Ironically, you're (still) missing the point smooge was trying to make, and 
perpetuating offtopic-ness on this list (and thread).

-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[John Harris]

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:32:38 PM EST Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:21, John Harris  wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:09:08 PM EST Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > And that is the most central problem with the license, and why it
> > > isn't free for everyone all of the time. The idea free licenses can
> > > have gray areas where they aren't free, pollutes the free license
> > > ecosystem with confusion. And it burdens users who aren't sure of
> > > their usage with having to hire a lawyer to find out. So the answer
> > > is, it's not a free license. We can't have people downloading Fedora
> > > who use it for building a service and then they end up snared in a
> > > lawsuit because 'oh fuck we're using MongoDB! and we didn't know about
> > > this! we thought Fedora was only free software!'
> > 
> > Even taken to an extreme, it would likely be sufficient to link to
> > Fedora's
> > sources on any software used to provide MongoDB as a service, assuming
> > their
> > service itself is free software.
> 
> For the last time, please move this to the legal list, a blog, or your own
> tweet stream. This isn't the list for non-lawyers to discuss how they think
> law, licenses and contracts 'work' just because it looks just like COBOL.

Please do not suggest non-free platforms such as Twitter. Most users do not 
know how to use such a platform without running non-free JavaScript, which may 
restrict their Four Freedoms.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr. 
Splentity
https://splentity.com/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:21, John Harris  wrote:

> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:09:08 PM EST Chris Murphy wrote:
> > And that is the most central problem with the license, and why it
> > isn't free for everyone all of the time. The idea free licenses can
> > have gray areas where they aren't free, pollutes the free license
> > ecosystem with confusion. And it burdens users who aren't sure of
> > their usage with having to hire a lawyer to find out. So the answer
> > is, it's not a free license. We can't have people downloading Fedora
> > who use it for building a service and then they end up snared in a
> > lawsuit because 'oh fuck we're using MongoDB! and we didn't know about
> > this! we thought Fedora was only free software!'
>
> Even taken to an extreme, it would likely be sufficient to link to
> Fedora's
> sources on any software used to provide MongoDB as a service, assuming
> their
> service itself is free software.
>
>
>
For the last time, please move this to the legal list, a blog, or your own
tweet stream. This isn't the list for non-lawyers to discuss how they think
law, licenses and contracts 'work' just because it looks just like COBOL.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[John Harris]

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:09:08 PM EST Chris Murphy wrote:
> And that is the most central problem with the license, and why it
> isn't free for everyone all of the time. The idea free licenses can
> have gray areas where they aren't free, pollutes the free license
> ecosystem with confusion. And it burdens users who aren't sure of
> their usage with having to hire a lawyer to find out. So the answer
> is, it's not a free license. We can't have people downloading Fedora
> who use it for building a service and then they end up snared in a
> lawsuit because 'oh fuck we're using MongoDB! and we didn't know about
> this! we thought Fedora was only free software!'

Even taken to an extreme, it would likely be sufficient to link to Fedora's 
sources on any software used to provide MongoDB as a service, assuming their 
service itself is free software.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr. 
Splentity
https://splentity.com/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Chris Murphy]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:42 PM John Harris  wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 4:19:13 PM EST Simon Farnsworth wrote:
> > But the SSPL also prevents you from using Free Software with it, unless you
> > have sufficient rights to offer said Free Software under the SSPL, as per
> > section 13 of the SSPL.
>
> You don't have to relicense software in order to be able to use it.
>
> > I do not have sufficient rights to relicence the Linux kernel under the SSPL
> > - it's not GPLv2 compatible - and the Linux kernel is one part of a service
> > I might choose to offer using only Free Software from Fedora's repos, plus
> > an SSPL licensed component.
>
> Yeah, none of that matters. See section 1.
>
> > Thus, I'm stuck - I can't use non-SSPL software from Fedora (or, indeed,
> > from the FSF) in combination with SSPL licensed software to provide a
> > service, even if I *also* make the full source of the entire service
> > available, since I'm not making the source available under the SSPL.
>
> Unless you're providing MongoDB as a service, it doesn't matter, even
> according to their own FAQ.

And that is the most central problem with the license, and why it
isn't free for everyone all of the time. The idea free licenses can
have gray areas where they aren't free, pollutes the free license
ecosystem with confusion. And it burdens users who aren't sure of
their usage with having to hire a lawyer to find out. So the answer
is, it's not a free license. We can't have people downloading Fedora
who use it for building a service and then they end up snared in a
lawsuit because 'oh fuck we're using MongoDB! and we didn't know about
this! we thought Fedora was only free software!'


-- 
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Florian Weimer]

* Emmanuel Seyman:

> I'm also going to note that the SSPLv1 has been superseded by the SSPLv2

That's not correct.  Version 1 is still current.

Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* John Harris [30/01/2019 21:09] :
>
> I'm offline for the night, but figured I'd head this off at the pass. I am 
> not 
> an attorney, and this does not constitute legal advice.

On that note, I'm going to recommend that legal discussions take place on the
legal list, not the devel one.

I'm also going to note that the SSPLv1 has been superseded by the SSPLv2 so
discussing the merits of the latter doesn't seem like the most productive use
of one time's but YMMV.

Emmanuel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[John Harris]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:05:42 PM EST Simon Farnsworth wrote:
> Where are you licensed to practice law? And is this legal advice that I can
> rely on your professional liability insurance for? Note that this statement
> is the exact opposite of one I've had from a real lawyer whose liability
> insurance kicks in if they're wrong - using MongoDB as a backing store
> could well be enough to require you to supply the whole service, including
> Major Components like the Linux kernel, under SSPL. AGPL is unacceptable -
> the terms say SSPL, and AGPL and SSPL are not identical.

I'm offline for the night, but figured I'd head this off at the pass. I am not 
an attorney, and this does not constitute legal advice.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr. 
Splentity
https://splentity.com/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Simon Farnsworth]

> On 31 Jan 2019, at 01:21, John Harris  wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 8:10:13 PM EST Simon Farnsworth wrote:
>> I do if I'm using it to provide a service that could be construed as "making
>> the functionality of the Program … available to third parties as a
>> service", under section 13 of the SSPL. As MongoDB's functionality includes
>> retrieval of documents and document fragments, it's possible to construe
>> the licence as covering anything that involves retrieval of a document or
>> document fragment from a server (so all web applications, for example).
> 
> Yeah, that's not what section 13 actually says.
> 
> If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available 
> to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code 
> available 
> via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this 
> License.
> 

What exactly is "the functionality of the Program" in the case of MongoDB? 
Document storage and retrieval are two components of that functionality, and as 
written, it can be construed as meaning that if you provide document retrieval 
or document storage from MongoDB in your service, then you "make the 
functionality of the Program …available to third parties as a service".

I suspect this isn't what they mean, but it's what they've written in their 
licence.

> While the license certainly doesn't require anything that uses MongoDB as a 
> backing store to be free software, you should definitely make that free 
> software under the terms of a license such as the AGPL.
> 

Where are you licensed to practice law? And is this legal advice that I can 
rely on your professional liability insurance for? Note that this statement is 
the exact opposite of one I've had from a real lawyer whose liability insurance 
kicks in if they're wrong - using MongoDB as a backing store could well be 
enough to require you to supply the whole service, including Major Components 
like the Linux kernel, under SSPL. AGPL is unacceptable - the terms say SSPL, 
and AGPL and SSPL are not identical.

>> This may not be what's intended, but it's a reasonable reading of the
>> licence as written, and it could get expensive to argue in court that
>> covering all document retrieval was not intended.
> 
> Perhaps. The easiest option is to just use only free software.
> 
Worse than that - the only option if section 13 kicks in is to use only SSPL 
licensed software, as you have to supply the majority of your source code 
*under the SSPL*. Not just supply source code, but licence it under SSPL terms. 
AGPL may be Free Software, but it's not acceptable here.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 I do not have sufficient rights to relicence the Linux kernel under the
 SSPL - it's not GPLv2 compatible - and the Linux kernel is one part of
 a service I might choose to offer using only Free Software from Fedora's
 repos, plus an SSPL licensed component.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yeah, none of that matters. See section 1.
>> 
>> 
>> I've read section 1 - Linux implements more than just a "Standard Interface"
>> as per that section (it goes beyond POSIX or any interface specified by an
>> Official Standards Body, and is not specified for a particular programming
>> language). Because of the way section 1 is drafted, "System Libraries" are
>> excluded from section 13, but *not* "Major Components"; the kernel in this
>> case is a major component, and is thus only definitively excluded if it
>> implements a "Standard Interface".
> 
> While I disagree, if you're worried about that just don't use grsecurity and 
> you're fine. Oh, and don't use proprietary kernel modules.
> 
Or xfs, or ext4, or mmap, as they all supply things beyond just Standard 
Interfaces as per the licence. And it's not enough to just release source - you 
are required to supply the source to everything you supply under SSPL terms, 
which means that you must have the rights to relicense all source you're 
supplying under the SSPL.

>> This may be an oversight - they may intend to exclude "Major Components" as
>> well as "System Libraries", but it's not what they've written in the
>> licence text. Only an item "which is not part of that Major Component" or
>> which "serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or
>> to implement a Standard Interface" are excluded from the SSPL's reach.
> 
>> But not according to the text of the SSPL; for MongoDB specifically, the FAQ
>> may act as "estoppel", but it's not part of the licence as written; merely
>> providing document storage or retrieval provides "the functionality of the
>> Program … to third parties". If I do that as a service - e.g. pulling out
>> billing records from MongoDB - I'm "mak[ing] the functionality of the
>> Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service", and
>> I'm covered by section 13 and have to distribute all but "System Libraries"
>> as source under the SSPL. This *includes* "Major Components", as section 1
>> 

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[John Harris]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 8:10:13 PM EST Simon Farnsworth wrote:
> I do if I'm using it to provide a service that could be construed as "making
> the functionality of the Program … available to third parties as a
> service", under section 13 of the SSPL. As MongoDB's functionality includes
> retrieval of documents and document fragments, it's possible to construe
> the licence as covering anything that involves retrieval of a document or
> document fragment from a server (so all web applications, for example).
 
Yeah, that's not what section 13 actually says.

If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available 
to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available 
via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this 
License.

While the license certainly doesn't require anything that uses MongoDB as a 
backing store to be free software, you should definitely make that free 
software under the terms of a license such as the AGPL.

> This may not be what's intended, but it's a reasonable reading of the
> licence as written, and it could get expensive to argue in court that
> covering all document retrieval was not intended.

Perhaps. The easiest option is to just use only free software.
 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> I do not have sufficient rights to relicence the Linux kernel under the
> >> SSPL - it's not GPLv2 compatible - and the Linux kernel is one part of
> >> a service I might choose to offer using only Free Software from Fedora's
> >> repos, plus an SSPL licensed component.
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah, none of that matters. See section 1.
> 
> 
> I've read section 1 - Linux implements more than just a "Standard Interface"
> as per that section (it goes beyond POSIX or any interface specified by an
> Official Standards Body, and is not specified for a particular programming
> language). Because of the way section 1 is drafted, "System Libraries" are
> excluded from section 13, but *not* "Major Components"; the kernel in this
> case is a major component, and is thus only definitively excluded if it
> implements a "Standard Interface".

While I disagree, if you're worried about that just don't use grsecurity and 
you're fine. Oh, and don't use proprietary kernel modules.
 
> This may be an oversight - they may intend to exclude "Major Components" as
> well as "System Libraries", but it's not what they've written in the
> licence text. Only an item "which is not part of that Major Component" or
> which "serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or
> to implement a Standard Interface" are excluded from the SSPL's reach.

> But not according to the text of the SSPL; for MongoDB specifically, the FAQ
> may act as "estoppel", but it's not part of the licence as written; merely
> providing document storage or retrieval provides "the functionality of the
> Program … to third parties". If I do that as a service - e.g. pulling out
> billing records from MongoDB - I'm "mak[ing] the functionality of the
> Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service", and
> I'm covered by section 13 and have to distribute all but "System Libraries"
> as source under the SSPL. This *includes* "Major Components", as section 1
> doesn't actually exclude them.

Yes, I think SSPLv2 is going to be coming around soon to address that.
 
> Again, this may not be what they intended, but it's what the text of the
> licence says, and I would rather not rely on having to claim that what they
> wrote is not what they meant in order to succeed in court.
 
Fair enough.

> Given these issues with the drafting of the licence, and the need to rely on
> MongoDB's FAQ to argue that, in the MongoDB case, the FAQ acts as estoppel,
> I can see why Fedora legal would consider the licence non-free. You've made
> claims for it that aren't backed by the actual text of the licence, for
> example.

Sure, but my interpretation of the License is based both on my comprehension 
and on the intent set by the FAQ.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr. 
Splentity
https://splentity.com/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Simon Farnsworth]

Note that I'm not a lawyer of any type - this is a distillation of 
conversations I've had with real lawyers, but you should not take it as legal 
advice. Talk to your own legal people if you need something you can rely on.

> On 30 Jan 2019, at 23:41, John Harris  wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 4:19:13 PM EST Simon Farnsworth wrote:
>> But the SSPL also prevents you from using Free Software with it, unless you
>> have sufficient rights to offer said Free Software under the SSPL, as per
>> section 13 of the SSPL.
> 
> You don't have to relicense software in order to be able to use it.

I do if I'm using it to provide a service that could be construed as "making 
the functionality of the Program … available to third parties as a service", 
under section 13 of the SSPL. As MongoDB's functionality includes retrieval of 
documents and document fragments, it's possible to construe the licence as 
covering anything that involves retrieval of a document or document fragment 
from a server (so all web applications, for example).

This may not be what's intended, but it's a reasonable reading of the licence 
as written, and it could get expensive to argue in court that covering all 
document retrieval was not intended.

> 
>> I do not have sufficient rights to relicence the Linux kernel under the SSPL
>> - it's not GPLv2 compatible - and the Linux kernel is one part of a service
>> I might choose to offer using only Free Software from Fedora's repos, plus
>> an SSPL licensed component.
> 
> Yeah, none of that matters. See section 1.

I've read section 1 - Linux implements more than just a "Standard Interface" as 
per that section (it goes beyond POSIX or any interface specified by an 
Official Standards Body, and is not specified for a particular programming 
language). Because of the way section 1 is drafted, "System Libraries" are 
excluded from section 13, but *not* "Major Components"; the kernel in this case 
is a major component, and is thus only definitively excluded if it implements a 
"Standard Interface".

This may be an oversight - they may intend to exclude "Major Components" as 
well as "System Libraries", but it's not what they've written in the licence 
text. Only an item "which is not part of that Major Component" or which "serves 
only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a 
Standard Interface" are excluded from the SSPL's reach.

> 
>> Thus, I'm stuck - I can't use non-SSPL software from Fedora (or, indeed,
>> from the FSF) in combination with SSPL licensed software to provide a
>> service, even if I *also* make the full source of the entire service
>> available, since I'm not making the source available under the SSPL.
> 
> Unless you're providing MongoDB as a service, it doesn't matter, even 
> according to their own FAQ.
> 
But not according to the text of the SSPL; for MongoDB specifically, the FAQ 
may act as "estoppel", but it's not part of the licence as written; merely 
providing document storage or retrieval provides "the functionality of the 
Program … to third parties". If I do that as a service - e.g. pulling out 
billing records from MongoDB - I'm "mak[ing] the functionality of the Program 
or a modified version available to third parties as a service", and I'm covered 
by section 13 and have to distribute all but "System Libraries" as source under 
the SSPL. This *includes* "Major Components", as section 1 doesn't actually 
exclude them.

Again, this may not be what they intended, but it's what the text of the 
licence says, and I would rather not rely on having to claim that what they 
wrote is not what they meant in order to succeed in court.

Given these issues with the drafting of the licence, and the need to rely on 
MongoDB's FAQ to argue that, in the MongoDB case, the FAQ acts as estoppel, I 
can see why Fedora legal would consider the licence non-free. You've made 
claims for it that aren't backed by the actual text of the licence, for example.
-- 
Simon
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[John Harris]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 4:19:13 PM EST Simon Farnsworth wrote:
> But the SSPL also prevents you from using Free Software with it, unless you
> have sufficient rights to offer said Free Software under the SSPL, as per
> section 13 of the SSPL.

You don't have to relicense software in order to be able to use it.
 
> I do not have sufficient rights to relicence the Linux kernel under the SSPL
> - it's not GPLv2 compatible - and the Linux kernel is one part of a service
> I might choose to offer using only Free Software from Fedora's repos, plus
> an SSPL licensed component.

Yeah, none of that matters. See section 1.
 
> Thus, I'm stuck - I can't use non-SSPL software from Fedora (or, indeed,
> from the FSF) in combination with SSPL licensed software to provide a
> service, even if I *also* make the full source of the entire service
> available, since I'm not making the source available under the SSPL.

Unless you're providing MongoDB as a service, it doesn't matter, even 
according to their own FAQ.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr. 
Splentity
https://splentity.com/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Simon Farnsworth]

> On 30 Jan 2019, at 17:06, John Harris  wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:28:46 PM EST Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 5:33 PM John Harris  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:29:58 AM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
>>> 
 Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
 not a Free Software License.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For what reason is SSPL considered non-free? As I see, it's essentially a
>>> GPL incompatible AGPL license.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It restricts fields of endeavor and how you can use it. That conflicts
>> with freedom 0 of the Free Software Definition. In addition, no one is
>> sure it's actually possible to comply with the SSPL as worded, since
>> it attempts to convert the licensing of everything that's part of the
>> running system, including things not directly linked to it.
> 
> The ability to use proprietary software in combination with free software is 
> not part of Freedom 0.
> 
But the SSPL also prevents you from using Free Software with it, unless you 
have sufficient rights to offer said Free Software under the SSPL, as per 
section 13 of the SSPL.

I do not have sufficient rights to relicence the Linux kernel under the SSPL - 
it's not GPLv2 compatible - and the Linux kernel is one part of a service I 
might choose to offer using only Free Software from Fedora's repos, plus an 
SSPL licensed component.

Thus, I'm stuck - I can't use non-SSPL software from Fedora (or, indeed, from 
the FSF) in combination with SSPL licensed software to provide a service, even 
if I *also* make the full source of the entire service available, since I'm not 
making the source available under the SSPL.

-- 
Simon
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Stephen John Smoogen]

Fedora does not run RPM Fusion nor have any say of what is in it so any
discussion of doing so would need to be over in their mailing lists etc
versus Fedora.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 12:16, Richard Shaw  wrote:

> I'm not sure if my previous email made it through and it's not an ideal
> solution but...
>
> What about moving MongoDB and it's dependencies to RPM Fusion?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Richard Shaw]

I'm not sure if my previous email made it through and it's not an ideal
solution but...

What about moving MongoDB and it's dependencies to RPM Fusion?

Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[John Harris]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:28:46 PM EST Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 5:33 PM John Harris  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:29:58 AM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
> > 
> > > Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
> > > not a Free Software License.
> >
> >
> >
> > For what reason is SSPL considered non-free? As I see, it's essentially a
> > GPL incompatible AGPL license.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> It restricts fields of endeavor and how you can use it. That conflicts
> with freedom 0 of the Free Software Definition. In addition, no one is
> sure it's actually possible to comply with the SSPL as worded, since
> it attempts to convert the licensing of everything that's part of the
> running system, including things not directly linked to it.

The ability to use proprietary software in combination with free software is 
not part of Freedom 0.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr. 
Splentity
https://splentity.com/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:31 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 5:33 PM John Harris  wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:29:58 AM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
> > > not a Free Software License.
> >
> > For what reason is SSPL considered non-free? As I see, it's essentially a 
> > GPL
> > incompatible AGPL license.
> >
>
> It restricts fields of endeavor and how you can use it. That conflicts
> with freedom 0 of the Free Software Definition. In addition, no one is
> sure it's actually possible to comply with the SSPL as worded, since
> it attempts to convert the licensing of everything that's part of the
> running system, including things not directly linked to it.

Ahh. Thank you for the clarification. Licenses are much like power
adapters, modular software installation tools. Everyone wants to
invent their own, many have similar fundamental flaws, none are
completely compatible, and we wind up with something like this from
XKCD.

https://xkcd.com/1406/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Florian Weimer]

* John Harris:

> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:29:58 AM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
>> Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
>> not a Free Software License.
>
> For what reason is SSPL considered non-free? As I see, it's
> essentially a GPL incompatible AGPL license.

For a start, it's unclear what “service” means.  Fedora provides
precompiled binaries and community support.  Does this “make the
functionality of the Program […] available to third parties as a
service”?  Who knows.  The FAQ only says that “users” (and not
distributions) are allowed to redistribute the software, and it does not
really talk about pre-built binaries.

(Fedora relies on a volunteer mirror network, so we can't publish all
the source code for the package download service even if we wanted to.)

It's true that one person employed by the company said that they do not
mean “service” as in “goods in services” in section 13, but we don't
know if that reflects a company position, and what the exact distinction
between pre-built software and software-as-a-service is.  Things like
OpenShift Operators blurry the line considerably.

Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 29. 01. 19 v 16:22 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
> * Honza Horak:
>
>>> Yes, right. There is rubygem-mongo and rubygem-mongoid and they will
>>> become FTBFS without MongoDB. The test suite could be disabled, but this
>>> will be unfortunate, because historically it helped to uncover issues on
>>> some of our arches.
>> While I see the value of tests, I personally don't consider just the
>> testing purposes to be a good enough reason to keep unmaintained
>> mongodb-server in Fedora, and don't see any other option here.


My main point was that this should be coordinated and the test suite
should be at least disable to prevent FTBFS.


> Maybe we could keep it as a buildroot-only package (similar to glibc32)
> and filter it from the composes?


But this would be much better option.


Vít


>
> On the other hand, it would set a bad precedent.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 5:33 PM John Harris  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:29:58 AM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
> > Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
> > not a Free Software License.
>
> For what reason is SSPL considered non-free? As I see, it's essentially a GPL
> incompatible AGPL license.
>

It restricts fields of endeavor and how you can use it. That conflicts
with freedom 0 of the Free Software Definition. In addition, no one is
sure it's actually possible to comply with the SSPL as worded, since
it attempts to convert the licensing of everything that's part of the
running system, including things not directly linked to it.

Cf. 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IQIOBOGWJ247JGKX2WD6N27TZNZZNM6C/




--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Till Maas]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:23:48PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:

> My understanding is that not only we will not able to test those, but there
> will be no point of shipping them at all. What am I missing?

It is very likely that the packages can still be used to access MongoDB
instances that run on other systems.

Kind regards
Till
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[John Harris]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:21:54 PM EST Chris Murphy wrote:
> It's not free for everyone all of the time.

Under what circumstances is it non-free? I agree that it's overreaching 
(attempting to claim software that is not part of it as being the same 
software), however I don't see circumstances under which it would be non-free.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr. 
Splentity
https://splentity.com/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Chris Murphy]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:07 PM John Harris  wrote:

> For what reason is SSPL considered non-free? As I see, it's essentially a GPL
> incompatible AGPL license.

https://opensource.org/LicenseReview122018
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-December/003875.html

It's not free for everyone all of the time.

-- 
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "JH" == John Harris  writes:

JH> For what reason is SSPL considered non-free? As I see, it's
JH> essentially a GPL incompatible AGPL license.

It's been pretty well covered throughout this whole debacle, but here's
the most recent announcement from Fedora Legal:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IQIOBOGWJ247JGKX2WD6N27TZNZZNM6C/

This information is also included in the Licensing section of the Fedora
wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/SSPL

- J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[John Harris]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:29:58 AM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
> Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
> not a Free Software License.

For what reason is SSPL considered non-free? As I see, it's essentially a GPL 
incompatible AGPL license.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr. 
Splentity
https://splentity.com/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Richard Shaw]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:29 AM Richard Shaw  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:32 AM Ben Cotton  wrote:
>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
>>
>> == Summary ==
>> Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
>> not a Free Software License. Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from
>> Fedora.
>
>
> I only recently got the Ubiquiti Unifi controller into the RPM Fusion
> non-free repository...
>
> Can it be moved to RPM Fusion? Of course that means that the dependencies
> will have to move as well...
>

(Sorry, hit tab-space and gmail send the message!)

Richard

>
>
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Richard Shaw]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:32 AM Ben Cotton  wrote:

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
>
> == Summary ==
> Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
> not a Free Software License. Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from
> Fedora.


I only recently got the Ubiquiti Unifi controller into the RPM Fusion
non-free repository...

Can it be moved to RPM Fusion? Of course
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Miro Hrončok]

On 29. 01. 19 16:17, Honza Horak wrote:

On 1/29/19 11:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:


Dne 29. 01. 19 v 11:39 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):

On 29. 01. 19 11:29, Ben Cotton wrote:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal

== Summary ==
Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
not a Free Software License. Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from
Fedora.


While I'm in favor of the removal, I don't think this is entirely true.

It should read:


Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from Fedora or never update it

again.

Never updating it would bring security issues, hence we decided to

remove it.


Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)


This is not true. This page needs to list all dependent packages on
Mongo and all dependent packages on Mongo connectors (such as
python-pymongo).



Yes, right. There is rubygem-mongo and rubygem-mongoid and they will
become FTBFS without MongoDB. The test suite could be disabled, but this
will be unfortunate, because historically it helped to uncover issues on
some of our arches.


While I see the value of tests, I personally don't consider just the testing 
purposes to be a good enough reason to keep unmaintained mongodb-server in 
Fedora, and don't see any other option here.


Do you see any viable solution here, Vit?


My understanding is that not only we will not able to test those, but there will 
be no point of shipping them at all. What am I missing?


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Florian Weimer]

* Honza Horak:

>> Yes, right. There is rubygem-mongo and rubygem-mongoid and they will
>> become FTBFS without MongoDB. The test suite could be disabled, but this
>> will be unfortunate, because historically it helped to uncover issues on
>> some of our arches.
>
> While I see the value of tests, I personally don't consider just the
> testing purposes to be a good enough reason to keep unmaintained
> mongodb-server in Fedora, and don't see any other option here.

Maybe we could keep it as a buildroot-only package (similar to glibc32)
and filter it from the composes?

On the other hand, it would set a bad precedent.

Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Honza Horak]

On 1/29/19 11:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:


Dne 29. 01. 19 v 11:39 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):

On 29. 01. 19 11:29, Ben Cotton wrote:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal

== Summary ==
Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
not a Free Software License. Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from
Fedora.


While I'm in favor of the removal, I don't think this is entirely true.

It should read:


Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from Fedora or never update it

again.

Never updating it would bring security issues, hence we decided to

remove it.


Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)


This is not true. This page needs to list all dependent packages on
Mongo and all dependent packages on Mongo connectors (such as
python-pymongo).



Yes, right. There is rubygem-mongo and rubygem-mongoid and they will
become FTBFS without MongoDB. The test suite could be disabled, but this
will be unfortunate, because historically it helped to uncover issues on
some of our arches.


While I see the value of tests, I personally don't consider just the 
testing purposes to be a good enough reason to keep unmaintained 
mongodb-server in Fedora, and don't see any other option here.


Do you see any viable solution here, Vit?

Honza


Vít




The change should explain if other packagers are expected to remove
the functionality from their packages or if the change owners will do
that.

If we just remove Mongo, it will cause broken deps.

Also, do we plan to move Mongo to the famous other repo (I assume
nonfree section)?


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le 2019-01-29 13:47, Florian Weimer a écrit :

* Nicolas Mailhot:


Le 2019-01-29 11:39, Miro Hrončok a écrit :


This is not true. This page needs to list all dependent packages on
Mongo and all dependent packages on Mongo connectors (such as
python-pymongo). The change should explain if other packagers are
expected to remove the functionality from their packages or if the
change owners will do that.


I should point out that pulp depends on mongodb. At one time pulp and
foreman were presented as the Fedora infra future in many public
forums and conferences.


Pulp 3 uses PostgreSQL and Redis:



(Note that while parts of the Redis ecosystem are no longer FLOSS, 
Redis

itself still is.)


That's nice to know but it's just the dev trunk isn't it? The latest 
release is still 2.18 with no public ETA for a complete stable 3.0, 
except for bits appearing now and then as beta version.


Nevertheless, I had missed this change, thanks a lot for pointing it 
out.



Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Florian Weimer]

* Nicolas Mailhot:

> Le 2019-01-29 11:39, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
>
>> This is not true. This page needs to list all dependent packages on
>> Mongo and all dependent packages on Mongo connectors (such as
>> python-pymongo). The change should explain if other packagers are
>> expected to remove the functionality from their packages or if the
>> change owners will do that.
>
> I should point out that pulp depends on mongodb. At one time pulp and
> foreman were presented as the Fedora infra future in many public
> forums and conferences.

Pulp 3 uses PostgreSQL and Redis:



(Note that while parts of the Redis ecosystem are no longer FLOSS, Redis
itself still is.)

Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 29. 01. 19 v 11:39 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> On 29. 01. 19 11:29, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
>>
>> == Summary ==
>> Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
>> not a Free Software License. Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from
>> Fedora.
>
> While I'm in favor of the removal, I don't think this is entirely true.
>
> It should read:
>
> > Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from Fedora or never update it
> again.
> > Never updating it would bring security issues, hence we decided to
> remove it.
>
> > Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
>
> This is not true. This page needs to list all dependent packages on
> Mongo and all dependent packages on Mongo connectors (such as
> python-pymongo). 


Yes, right. There is rubygem-mongo and rubygem-mongoid and they will
become FTBFS without MongoDB. The test suite could be disabled, but this
will be unfortunate, because historically it helped to uncover issues on
some of our arches.


Vít



> The change should explain if other packagers are expected to remove
> the functionality from their packages or if the change owners will do
> that.
>
> If we just remove Mongo, it will cause broken deps.
>
> Also, do we plan to move Mongo to the famous other repo (I assume
> nonfree section)?
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le 2019-01-29 11:39, Miro Hrončok a écrit :


This is not true. This page needs to list all dependent packages on
Mongo and all dependent packages on Mongo connectors (such as
python-pymongo). The change should explain if other packagers are
expected to remove the functionality from their packages or if the
change owners will do that.


I should point out that pulp depends on mongodb. At one time pulp and 
foreman were presented as the Fedora infra future in many public forums 
and conferences.


I suppose this is now over but it would be nice to have a confirmation 
on the infra bits Fedora endorses (or not). Starting with repo 
management, since any entity that wants to set up a private infra as 
clearing room before contributing to Fedora, will need one of those


Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Miro Hrončok]

On 29. 01. 19 11:29, Ben Cotton wrote:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal

== Summary ==
Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
not a Free Software License. Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from
Fedora.


While I'm in favor of the removal, I don't think this is entirely true.

It should read:

> Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from Fedora or never update it again.
> Never updating it would bring security issues, hence we decided to remove it.

> Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)

This is not true. This page needs to list all dependent packages on Mongo and 
all dependent packages on Mongo connectors (such as python-pymongo). The change 
should explain if other packagers are expected to remove the functionality from 
their packages or if the change owners will do that.


If we just remove Mongo, it will cause broken deps.

Also, do we plan to move Mongo to the famous other repo (I assume nonfree 
section)?

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal

== Summary ==
Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
not a Free Software License. Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from
Fedora.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:panovotn| Patrik Novotný]]

* Email: panov...@redhat.com


-- 
Ben Cotton
Fedora Program Manager
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org

F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal

== Summary ==
Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public Licensev1 (SSPL) is
not a Free Software License. Therefore, we need to drop MongoDB from
Fedora.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:panovotn| Patrik Novotný]]

* Email: panov...@redhat.com


-- 
Ben Cotton
Fedora Program Manager
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org