Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

src.sourcegraph.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 137 posts

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#91

Post by bradrydzewski »

Titanous wrote: post #75

This looks neat, but the license is fatal. It is not "just like an open-source license." First, what is a "user"? It is not defined anywhere in the license. I did not look at the source code, because of the potential IP issues. What would happen if you looked at the source code and then later worked on another open source project and implemented a bit of code that looks similar? The worst case scenario if you did thi…

> I did not look at the source code, because of the potential IP issues. What would happen if you looked at the source code and then later worked on another open source project and implemented a bit of code that looks similar?

Could this also be an issue with the GPL? What happens if I look at GPL source code and then author similar code under a non-GPL license? I wonder if a precedent has been set that could be applied to this Fair Source license.

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#92

Post by nickpsecurity »

dragonwriter wrote: post #86
nickpsecurity wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another commenter countered me on that and I agreed with the modification here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10623006 Any suggestion for what to call (a) software with source included in general that doesn't meet OSI & FSF definitions or (b) paid software w/ key benefits of OSI?

> Any suggestion for what to call (a) software with source included in general that doesn't meet OSI & FSF definitions "Source disclosed" or "Shared source". > paid software w/ key benefits of OSI? Since Open Source (and, for that matter, Free -- which means libre, but not necessarily gratis) software can be paid , if paid software actually has the "key benefits" of Open Source, it is probably because it is Open Sour…

"Shared source"

It's a start.

"if paid software actually has the "key benefits" of Open Source, it is probably because it is Open Source."

You got me thinking on it enough to consult the opensource.org requirements. :) Two jumped out at me immediately:

" Free Redistribution"

"License Must Not Be Specific to a Product"

Many forms of paid software with open-source benefits don't allow this or not for all parties. A license might have to be paid on a per-user, per-product, or per-project basis. Other benefits of OSS can remain. So, it's not traditional definition of OSS but still respects freedoms of paying users to various degrees.

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#93

Post by Dangeranger »

slimsag wrote: post #35
Dangeranger wrote: post #31

This looks really great, thanks for making it open-source and for releasing https://fair.io as a new license model. One thing that you should know is that your 'appdash' trace links are publicly available. You can see a screenshot here https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfu2sbz2ctlxwsx/Screenshot%202015-...

(dev here) thanks for the heads up! :) I've created an issue[1] so I can fix this soon; it's just a link to the trace served by Appdash[2] and the instance isn't actually public so it's not a security issue (just a broken link). Certainly shouldn't be visible to non-devs who can't access it, though. Really appreciate the feedback, let me know if you have more! :) [1] https://src.sourcegraph.com/sourcegraph/.tracker/3…

Yeah I noticed that the link directed you to a login page. If I notice anything else I'll send a follow up.

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#94

Post by dragonwriter »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #14
Somasis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be better off selling services akin to what GitLab does for sustenance.

All evidence is to the contrary. The companies making the most profit on software are licensing it somehow while others that are at least successful are using plenty venture capital with SaaS. So, both are the best choices and the use of a proprietary license preserving FOSS-style freedoms is interesting. Strange how much negativity proprietary OSS gets on HN vs cool, proprietary, closed tech.

> Strange how much negativity proprietary OSS

"Proprietary OSS" is an oxymoron, like "four-sided triangle".

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#95

Post by dragonwriter »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #92
dragonwriter wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any suggestion for what to call (a) software with source included in general that doesn't meet OSI & FSF definitions "Source disclosed" or "Shared source". > paid software w/ key benefits of OSI? Since Open Source (and, for that matter, Free -- which means libre, but not necessarily gratis) software can be paid , if paid software actually has the "key benefits" of Open Source, it is probably because it is Open Sour…

"Shared source" It's a start. "if paid software actually has the "key benefits" of Open Source, it is probably because it is Open Source." You got me thinking on it enough to consult the opensource.org requirements. :) Two jumped out at me immediately: " Free Redistribution" "License Must Not Be Specific to a Product" Many forms of paid software with open-source benefits don't allow this or not for all parties. A lic…

> Many forms of paid software with open-source benefits don't allow this or not for all parties.

I think most people who believe that open source has benefits would disagree that there is software that provides "open-source benefits" without providing this. What specific examples can you point to of these "many forms" of paid software, and what "open-source benefits" do they provide without these?

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#96

Post by nickpsecurity »

davexunit wrote: post #88
nickpsecurity wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase itself originally came from the free software movement. The practice pre-dated it. Former is philosophical meaning with strings attached, the latter is a literal definition with many forms. I'm using the latter. I'd be up for considering a new term to avoid confusion. Paid, non-profit or for-profit, models allow for most benefits of OSS if structured correctly. So, the new phrase must allow for that. I've…

>Former is philosophical meaning with strings attached, the latter is a literal definition with many forms. I'm using the latter. You can't just change the meaning of the term and expect everyone to know you mean this alternate definition. "Open Source" is as defined by the OSI, and not whatever loose definition that you use that includes proprietary software. >I've been calling it "proprietary OSS" or "paid OSS." "P…

"You can't just change the meaning of the term and expect everyone to know you mean this alternate definition. "Open Source" is as defined by the OSI, and not whatever loose definition that you use that includes proprietary software."

I've already agreed with you and dragonwriter on that. dragonwriter suggested "shared source" as a start. Might go with that temporarily.

""Proprietary OSS" does not make sense given the definition of OSS! The phrase you should be using is "proprietary software.""

Starting now. Proprietary, shared-source software would make sense and can have most benefits of OSS. Just calling it proprietary software, though, instantly conveys the image of something closed source, for money, not allowing modifications, and with tons of risk. So, I can't just call an OSS-like, but paid, model proprietary due to public perception much like I apparently can't use "proprietary OSS" for same reason.

Hence, need for new terms. Especially one that captures the spirit of OSS with change that distribution/use is paid to some degree in some way, either money or code/doc contributions. Will re-write my old essay, though, as you two got to the bottom of one of its problems.

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#97

Post by ultramancool »

dragonwriter wrote: post #77
davexunit wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it’s often practical matters that attract users and developers to open source software. But the (un)Fair Source License is not an Open Source license.

> A glance at fair.io shows an interesting attempt to provide OSS under a proprietary model. I'm not sure that that is the case: its clearly not Free, but it might be that rare example of a license that meets the OSI Open Source definition but not the FSF Free Software definition. (It clearly violates the spirit of Open Source, and if OSI were to review it, the Open Source definition might be explicitly amended to pr…

You might have a look at my discussion with the CEO here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10622760

It seems they've completely prohibited forks effectively by prohibiting redistribution of modified versions. I'm not sure about the OSI definitions, but that definitely doesn't fit with any idea of open source I have at least.

At best, I view it as a proprietary product, their source release is no more useful than say, JIRA's. At worst, it seems strangely dishonest to try to promote your product as open source using this sort of license but twist it so far that it doesn't resemble open source at all.

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#98

Post by stygiansonic »

sqs wrote: post #2

Sourcegraph CEO here. We have large enterprise customers using Sourcegraph and are excited to release it publicly (with source code) so anyone can start using Sourcegraph for their team's code. Feedback is much appreciated! More info at the announcement blog post ( https://sourcegraph.com/blog/133554180524/announcing-the-sou... ) and at https://sourcegraph.com .

Hi, thanks for this - watched the 2-min demo video and was impressed.

I understand that Go and Java are currently supported - that's great, two of my favourite languages. Is there any planned support for a dynamically-typed language like Python in the future?

Thanks again, best wishes for your company/product/service.

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#99

Post by nickpsecurity »

dragonwriter wrote: post #95
nickpsecurity wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Shared source" It's a start. "if paid software actually has the "key benefits" of Open Source, it is probably because it is Open Source." You got me thinking on it enough to consult the opensource.org requirements. :) Two jumped out at me immediately: " Free Redistribution" "License Must Not Be Specific to a Product" Many forms of paid software with open-source benefits don't allow this or not for all parties. A lic…

> Many forms of paid software with open-source benefits don't allow this or not for all parties. I think most people who believe that open source has benefits would disagree that there is software that provides "open-source benefits" without providing this. What specific examples can you point to of these "many forms" of paid software, and what "open-source benefits" do they provide without these?

I'm talking about licenses/models rather than specific products which come and go in this space outside dual-licensing or proprietary with source as in embedded scene.

To get more specific, you can read the source, you can modify it to suit your needs, you can submit modifications for redistribution by owner, you can fix problems, port to new hardware, often include it in your proprietary software, optional component of OSS software, and optionally fork it as GPL. (optional used to denote some paid, source-shared don't do this) That's really close to OSS software while still being proprietary to support active development and maintenance by full-time people. The dollar amount w/ associated benefits can be as large or small as one likes, even fixed. Provisions can be made for it to go BSD etc if abandoned or unsupported by original owner.

I'm just curious how far a proprietary model can go into increased OSS-style benefits and reduced proprietary-style risks. I'm sure it's way closer than people think with the dual-licensed stuff being most obvious indicators that hybrid models w/ licensing revenue are achievable.

Re: Sourcegraph: self-hosted Git service with semantic code navigation/search/review

#100

Post by nickpsecurity »

dragonwriter wrote: post #89
nickpsecurity wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It replicates once it attaches to things. This is true even of distributing a large amount of non-free code while someone in organization unknowingly included a tiny amount of copyleft code. Now, FSF etc are usually more reasonable about enforcement and I doubt most would do more than ask it be removed if whole isn't GPL'd. The image fits the behavior of the code, though. Hence the meme. More accurate description is…

> It replicates once it attaches to things. No, it doesn't. > This is true even of distributing a large amount of non-free code while someone in organization unknowingly included a tiny amount of copyleft code. If a single work is distributed that is based on copyleft code (not a mere aggregation that includes copyleft code and other code), then not licensing the resulting work as specified in the copyleft license is…

Now, it's possible my memory is messing me up again or I bought into a false explanation of the legal issues.

To be clear, your saying that my worry was inaccurate and one person including GPL code into a new, released version of a proprietary app doesn't require the whole, linked source of that app be released under GPL? That happening is very virus-like but if it can't then it wouldn't be virus-like.

Post reply on HN