21–30 of 179 posts
That's pretty good, to be honest.
Congratulations!
"I've decided to become vegetarian. From now on I only eat meat on Wednesdays." "That's not what vegetarian means!" BSL is not open source.
I love BSL, it's my license of choice for my projects. However, I fully agree it's not open source and it annoys me when others claim to be open source while using BSL. I specifically have the first question in my faq about being open source where I say it's not open source. I've had feedback that some people just stopped paying attention at that point and others where they found it refreshing it wasn't pretending to be open source.
"I've decided to become vegetarian. From now on I only eat meat on Wednesdays." "That's not what vegetarian means!" BSL is not open source.
Not really open source, they are releasing their code under the BSL (Business Source License https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/blob/main/LICENSE ). But still great, and they use Django :D It's also interesting that they will no longer offer a commercial self-hosted solution. > As a part of this shift, we are offering a new self-hosted repo that makes it easy to run Codecov in a minimal docker-compose based setup…
Standard open-source but you can't use it in a competing commercial offering.
"I've decided to become vegetarian. From now on I only eat meat on Wednesdays." "That's not what vegetarian means!" BSL is not open source.
Would you rather they just keep their source completely closed then? I just don’t understand the criticism of a company transparently acting in its best interest (in what I would consider to be a completely reasonable way).
I just want them to stop using deceptive language.
> I just don’t understand the criticism of a company transparently acting in its best interest (in what I would consider to be a completely reasonable way).
They are lying in order to benefit from the good will and legitimacy that open source brings.
Not really open source, they are releasing their code under the BSL (Business Source License https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/blob/main/LICENSE ). But still great, and they use Django :D It's also interesting that they will no longer offer a commercial self-hosted solution. > As a part of this shift, we are offering a new self-hosted repo that makes it easy to run Codecov in a minimal docker-compose based setup…
> Business Source License Standard open-source but you can't use it in a competing commercial offering.
"I've decided to become vegetarian. From now on I only eat meat on Wednesdays." "That's not what vegetarian means!" BSL is not open source.
No, but Apache 2.0 is, which is what we revert to after three years. The better analogy would be, "I've decided to become vegetarian, starting in three days." But then actually legally guaranteeing that you'll follow through vs. always pushing it off into the future which is what it sounds like with the vegetarian example, I know I wouldn't believe myself if I said that. :D
[disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]
"I've decided to become vegetarian. From now on I only eat meat on Wednesdays." "That's not what vegetarian means!" BSL is not open source.
They are making an effort though. Public-available code and open source go hand in hand, even if they have overwhelmingly different principles. They, as a business, found it more advantageous to make their product available to the public. There are of course business interests rooted in it, (like ending support for their paid product, or gaining free publicity/more sponsorships) but shooing away acts like these just…
Releasing the source is nice but they shouldn't use deceptive language.
> found it more advantageous to make their product available to the public.
That's fine but they should call it something else.
"I've decided to become vegetarian. From now on I only eat meat on Wednesdays." "That's not what vegetarian means!" BSL is not open source.
It's open source, except that you can't use it in a competing commercial product. So for 99% of uses, open source.