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

121–130 of 137 posts

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

#121

Post by pararth »

stygiansonic wrote: post #98
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.

(dev here) Hi, thanks for your comments. Python support is in the pipeline (currently at alpha stage). You can learn more about the status of our language support and ways to contribute here:

https://src.sourcegraph.com/sourcegraph/.docs/config/toolcha...

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

#122

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> First, what is a "user"? It is not defined anywhere in the license.

To the extent it is defined, it seems to be defined exclusively as internal users (including commonly-controlled organizations), which might have...interesting...implications if the licensee chose to use their (potentially modified) software in SaaS, rather than internally.

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

#123

Post by dragonwriter »

beliu wrote: post #120
durin42 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mentioned this over on lobste.rs, but I'll mention it here in brief: fair.io does a really bad job of stating this intent. The elevator pitch mentions open source but not proprietary. Please consider rewording fair.io to be clearer about the non-open-source intent here.

Thanks for this suggestion. We want to make it clear that Fair Source is not Open Source. We've updated the summary in the header: https://fair.io . Hope this is clearer!

You still make the false claim that "The Fair Source License works just like an open-source license when the usage is below the Use Limitation."

Fair Source never works like an Open Source license. It works like (because it is) a source-available proprietary license which allows local (but not redistributed) modifications. Below the use limitation, it is also a free-of-cost license. But it never works like an Open Source license, and it doesn't even work more like an Open Source license below the Use Limitation.

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

#124

Post by richardfontana »

davexunit wrote: post #82
dragonwriter wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I can't speak for the OSI, but this seems in clear violation of the Open Source definition. I'll await their word.

I am an OSI board director. Generally the OSI does not comment on licenses that have not been submitted for approval. FWIW, I reviewed the license and I agree that it is clearly inconsistent with the Open Source Definition (and with generally accepted notions of what free software and open source licenses are).

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

#125

Post by nickpsecurity »

dragonwriter wrote: post #119
nickpsecurity wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The license doesn't attach without your knowledge." It does if one person on a large team did it without others' knowledge. This doesn't occur for most, non-copyleft code. At that point, if it's a derivative work, then your codebase looses its value as it gets GPL'd just because GPL'd code touched it. Preventing that outcome would require both preventative methods and constant vigilance. Kind of like avoiding gettin…

> > The license doesn't attach without your knowledge. > It does if one person on a large team did it without others' knowledge. No, the license never attaches to your code without a positive decision on your part to offer your code under the license. Now, if someone does something that makes the code legally a derivative work of GPL code without knowledge of the person releasing the code, the obligation to release t…

"the obligation to release the code under the GPL or not at all may be created and breached without knowledge of the person doing the release, but the license still has not attached to your code."

This is the specific concern. The name of the license isn't what people call a virus: it's the obligation it attaches to things.

"copyleft licenses are not at all special in this regard."

Damage to most copyright violations is usually a fine/settlement, publishing source of the component (not app), removal, and so on. Not an obligation to loose one's own I.P. entirely. How many common licenses that cut/pasted code or included libraries might be affected by require redistribution of the application's source in full once it gets in a release? I thought it was a non-zero amount that was pretty low for most sources. Whereas, bumbling around on a site with GPL stuff drives it up singificantly specifically due to copyleft.

" the few GPL violation cases (in the US, at least) that have gone to court and not been settled have resulted in fines and injunctions on distributing the GPL-dependent software."

Now we're talking the actual results. The virus metaphor could be dropped if it was clear that this was the worst thing that could happen and that component would just have to be dropped/replaced with non-GPL stuff. Them doing it that way is certainly reassuring. Trick is, could they instead force app using it to go GPL? Guess it hinges on enforceability of that obligation.

"The description of the GPL as "viral" was central to Microsoft's PR effort against Free Software in general and Linux in particular. So, its not really surprising to hear that from that source."

From an ex-employee mocking that source's stance on GPL as paranoid, to be clear. Not surprising, though.

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

#126

Post by e12e »

sqs wrote: post #62
CCoffie wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay explain to how forking would work with this license. Forking a project is a huge part of creating a OSS community. Would licensing have to go to both parties? I don't see any explanation of how it would work for this license.

Sourcegraph CEO here. Fair Source is not an open-source license. It is intended to be an improvement over closed source (GitHub, Bitbucket, etc.) and open core (where many important bits are closed source). Fair Source is not intended to support forking and independent redistribution.

AFAIK this is similar to how Microsoft licenses Windows: you get the product, and source is available on request (and an NDA [and perhaps only to select customers]). In this case the fee for source access is waived, and in place of an NDA is the spectre of patent and copyright lawsuits. But essentially the licence is similar, the pricing is different?

Makes me a bit sad in the wake of MS liberating a lot of stuff lately, like Visual Studio.

Of course not many other companies have the benefit of collecting an OS tax on hardware - I still think I'd prefer eg the AGPL to this.

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

#127

Post by dragonwriter »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #125
dragonwriter wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > The license doesn't attach without your knowledge. > It does if one person on a large team did it without others' knowledge. No, the license never attaches to your code without a positive decision on your part to offer your code under the license. Now, if someone does something that makes the code legally a derivative work of GPL code without knowledge of the person releasing the code, the obligation to release t…

"the obligation to release the code under the GPL or not at all may be created and breached without knowledge of the person doing the release, but the license still has not attached to your code." This is the specific concern. The name of the license isn't what people call a virus: it's the obligation it attaches to things. "copyleft licenses are not at all special in this regard." Damage to most copyright violations…

> Damage to most copyright violations is usually a fine/settlement, publishing source of the component (not app), removal, and so on.

Legal damage from GPL violations is generally fine and injunction against further release of the software with the GPL-bound components; release of application code under the GPL is typically something that happens, if at all, in a settlement, because the copyright owner would rather do that than pay damages and restructure the software not to depend on the GPL-bound component.

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

#128

Post by Gibheer »

billybofh wrote: post #10
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 .

It seems to want to take my email address so you can email me 'stuff' - and also I need to use OAuth2 via your site for... something? I'm afraid I've given up on it after about three minutes :-/ Our servers aren't connected to the internet so this kinda fails the 'self hosted' test for us...

You may be interested in gogs [1]. When I saw the feature list, it sounded a bit like a gogs clone, but it was missing some features.

As for gogs, it is already coming along nicely. It has support for LDAP authentication and has some other nice features.

[1]: https://github.com/gogits/gogs

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

#129

Post by nickpsecurity »

dragonwriter wrote: post #127
nickpsecurity wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the obligation to release the code under the GPL or not at all may be created and breached without knowledge of the person doing the release, but the license still has not attached to your code." This is the specific concern. The name of the license isn't what people call a virus: it's the obligation it attaches to things. "copyleft licenses are not at all special in this regard." Damage to most copyright violations…

> Damage to most copyright violations is usually a fine/settlement, publishing source of the component (not app), removal, and so on. Legal damage from GPL violations is generally fine and injunction against further release of the software with the GPL-bound components; release of application code under the GPL is typically something that happens, if at all, in a settlement , because the copyright owner would rather…

Good distinction. So, potentially a virus in theory in certain situations but rarely in practice. Might drop the label in the future.

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

#130

Post by sdesol »

Gibheer wrote: post #128
billybofh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to want to take my email address so you can email me 'stuff' - and also I need to use OAuth2 via your site for... something? I'm afraid I've given up on it after about three minutes :-/ Our servers aren't connected to the internet so this kinda fails the 'self hosted' test for us...

You may be interested in gogs [1]. When I saw the feature list, it sounded a bit like a gogs clone, but it was missing some features. As for gogs, it is already coming along nicely. It has support for LDAP authentication and has some other nice features. [1]: https://github.com/gogits/gogs

It also appears to be consistently worked on as the following shows:

http://imgur.com/a/hIest

The last picture shows the commit activity between the various branches. Not sure what the "git" branch, which started to deviate in October, is for though.

Post reply on HN