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

Sourcegraph is now open source

about.sourcegraph.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–95 of 95 posts

Re: Sourcegraph is now open source

#91

Post by marcinkuzminski »

ijsnow wrote: post #87
marcinkuzminski wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your answer. Our product is actually also open-core. And the source is here: https://code.rhodecode.com/rhodecode-enterprise-ce In this case, what's the best process to start, should we open an issue, or send support email? Cheers

In that case, let's build it right in to RhodeCode! A good place to start would be opening an issue on your product's issue tracker and start discussing requirements there.

Thanks, we'll discuss this and follow up!

This is exciting!

Re: Sourcegraph is now open source

#92

Post by jordigh »

mikekchar wrote: post #88
xorcist wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Open core" and dual licensing are two completely separate business models. They should not be conflated. Open core business models depends on selling non-free software. Normally all or nearly all development is done by a singular company. The core software could probably just as easily have been free-of-charge, and everything else would have been completely identical. (But on the other hand, if you're not making mon…

As a business model dual licensing means having a free software license (which may or may not be copy-left) and a proprietary software license. Having 2 or more free software licenses is not a business model, even if it is handy for letting people get around the GPL. There is no reason to pay for the second free software license. Otherwise you could just use MIT or the equivalent and be rolling in money. Obviously it…

What no, open core is not dual licensing, at least, not by what is meant here with "dual licensing".

Dual licensing is about selling exceptions. Selling copyleft exceptions. There's no dual licensing without copyleft, because there is no exception to sell. And yes, it requires a single copyright holder. FFTW is an example of dual licensing. Octave gets FFTW because we like copyleft and Matlab gets FFTW because they like to pay to hide their code.

But it doesn't just have to be a library. MongoDB also sells exceptions because people are irrationally afraid of the AGPL.

I think you were confused by software like Firefox which is dual or triple-licensed and all recipients get to pick which license they want to follow, but that's not what was being discussed here.

Re: Sourcegraph is now open source

#93

Post by mikekchar »

jordigh wrote: post #92
mikekchar wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a business model dual licensing means having a free software license (which may or may not be copy-left) and a proprietary software license. Having 2 or more free software licenses is not a business model, even if it is handy for letting people get around the GPL. There is no reason to pay for the second free software license. Otherwise you could just use MIT or the equivalent and be rolling in money. Obviously it…

What no, open core is not dual licensing, at least, not by what is meant here with "dual licensing". Dual licensing is about selling exceptions. Selling copyleft exceptions. There's no dual licensing without copyleft, because there is no exception to sell. And yes, it requires a single copyright holder. FFTW is an example of dual licensing. Octave gets FFTW because we like copyleft and Matlab gets FFTW because they l…

Sigh... you are right about the copyleft thing. I'm not sure where my head was. Just so I get this right: you're saying that "open core" is essentially having a copyleft license and a proprietary license, while "dual licensing" is having a copyleft license and another non-copyleft free software license? If so, I can understand what you are saying :-)

Re: Sourcegraph is now open source

#94

Post by jordigh »

mikekchar wrote: post #93
jordigh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What no, open core is not dual licensing, at least, not by what is meant here with "dual licensing". Dual licensing is about selling exceptions. Selling copyleft exceptions. There's no dual licensing without copyleft, because there is no exception to sell. And yes, it requires a single copyright holder. FFTW is an example of dual licensing. Octave gets FFTW because we like copyleft and Matlab gets FFTW because they l…

Sigh... you are right about the copyleft thing. I'm not sure where my head was. Just so I get this right: you're saying that "open core" is essentially having a copyleft license and a proprietary license, while "dual licensing" is having a copyleft license and another non-copyleft free software license? If so, I can understand what you are saying :-)

Open core is freemium. You can use the base under a free license but if you want fancy features, those are under a non-free license.

Selling exceptions (or what someone else called, "dual licensing") means everyone gets the same software, both free and non-free, but people who don't want copyleft have to pay.

Re: Sourcegraph is now open source

#95

Post by regnerba »

dadlerj wrote: post #78
regnerba wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, quick question (and maybe this is just a legacy from before open source): From[1]: "If you do not wish to pay for code intelligence, you can disable language servers in the Code intelligence section of the site admin area." The pricing page however says that feature is included in the free version. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me. [1] https://about.sourcegraph.com/docs/code-intelligence/install

Sourcegrapher here. Yep, this was a reference to an old pricing model. Just pushed a fix, it will be live soon!

Thanks for the response and quick fix. :)
Post reply on HN