Why did they send this to you over email? Are you in a separate time zone, deaf or something else? Seems like it would be an odd thing to discuss over email.
FWIW I've worked in places where this would be standard to communicate over email, particularly if it's not that big of a deal (as in, we have plenty of other projects).
We don't really know the details of how the rejection even took place--maybe he asked for it that project, maybe he was on it and performed poorly, etc.
This might be the case if you run servers on single machines rather than in clusters. And if you are running servers on single instances, aren't you already giving yourself a SPOF? If you need a specific server to be running at all times it seems like you have a problem.
If you work for a bigger organization these licenses are banned for a good reason. There are some companies who are a little bit too relaxed with this ban (like VMWare) and you can see the results. I know for fact that some of the big guys take licensing very seriously and there are licenses that are approved for use while others are banned. The want to make sure there is no surprise down the road.
That still only goes so far, though. If you're building a product on top of a database that's licensed with the AGPL, like Mongo, you have to distribute those changes.* If you build your Intranet site on Mongo, though, you don't need to distribute those changes in a way that gets back to upstream.
* I think. And I don't know if this has withstood the sort of court scrutiny the GPL has.
I'm aware. What's not clear is whether applies to the individual components of an organization (i.e. its employees) or just the organization as a whole. I want to think the answer is that intra-organizational distribution still counts as distribution (and therefore cannot be restricted), but usually it's considered acceptable to use a modified version of (A)GPL'd software internally (i.e. not used outside the organization) without it counting as "distribution", so things are kind of fuzzy without explicit terms in that regard.
Such are the side-effects of treating organizations as singular entities :)
And that would make no change for things like OSs.
If OpenBSD was AGPL and my ISP used it on all its network hardware with some custom modification, they still wouldn't be forced to contribute back those changes.
We need to stop making licences that attempt to force people to do the right thing, and start educating people to do the write thing out of free will.
What does the lack of SSL termination mean? We are running many services in Azure which we access using TLS1.2 via the loaf balancer so what would SSL termination add to this?
> An SSL termination proxy is a proxy server that is used by an institution to handle incoming SSL connections, decrypting the SSL and passing on the unencrypted request to the institution's other servers (it is assumed that the institution's own network is secure so the user's session data does not need to be encrypted on that part of the link). SSL termination proxies are used to reduce the load on the main servers by offloading the cryptographic processing to another machine, and to support servers that do not support SSL, like Varnish.
SSL/TLS can only be configured if you use their "Web app" PaaS offering . If you're using plain VMs (IaaS) then there are no options for SSL/TLS. You have to do it yourself on your VMs using haproxy/nginx/stud.
I thought MongoDb:s main selling point was the simple scale-out model? At least that's what stuck with me. I'm well aware about the non-robustness properties of Mongo, but to me it seems like calling this a clone without the scale-out capabilities would be missing the point.
It's a proof of concept. The author's essentially saying, "here, it can be done, this is one way of doing it." It would need more bits and pieces and more tuning to be useful in a production case, but this shows that it at least can work.
I think you missed my point. The USP of MongoDb in my view is the simplicity and its scalability model. At least these are the things which are interesting to me and what is hard to implement. They have cloned a subset of the functionality - the subset which is easy - and left the hard parts. I don't agree that this proves anything.
