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

CodeCov is now Open Source

about.codecov.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#31

Post by YPCrumble »

zeeg wrote: post #17
YPCrumble wrote: post #13

People often claim that open source is more secure, which is implied in this release. But the CodeCov breach that leaked any secrets provided to CI/CD pipelines [1] was done via a bash script available to anyone to read the code. The breach wasn't complex at all. It was just that nobody noticed for a long time that the bash uploader script sent all secrets to a random IP address. It makes me wonder what the benefit r…

It’s not about security for us, but about accessibility of technology. Open source lifts the barriers on who can use software (eg outside of politics, compliance, etc), and enables knowledge share. It’s - from Sentrys angle - how we enable any developer to take advantage of our technology, hopefully enabling them to solve other problems and grow the industry.

So cool to see the CTO of Sentry here! This makes some sense to me - I'm actually following an issue with Sentry I had recently and although it's not being fixed anytime soon at least I know the status.

https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-python/issues/370

I'd love to believe that one day someone will crack the nut of "Sentry puts a bounty on this issue and YPCrumble decides to make a PR because it's something he's experiencing AND he'd get some experience working on the Sentry codebase which would be a learning opportunity, and he feels like he's getting paid for his time."

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#33

Post by whit537 »

whit537 wrote: post #27
dmm wrote: post #6

"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.

> 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…

And until then you can do whatever you want except build a competing business, and if you're that eager to build a code coverage business then you should just come work with us lol.

https://sentry.io/careers/

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#35

Post by whit537 »

paulddraper wrote: post #30
closewith wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So not open source.

Mostly open source.

Don't forget that it reverts to Apache 2.0 after three years—eventually open source for the nit-pickers. ;^)

[disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#36

Post by jsiepkes »

After a couple of decades of development I must say I personally find integration tests more useful than unit tests

I mostly only do unit tests for things which are very "logic intensive" like a parser and such things. I think a good rule of thumb is if writing unit tests during development actually helps me with development the tests are probably also useful during the development cycle.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#37

Post by tedivm »

I am so freaking sick of companies lying and exploiting open source. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish at it's finest. By calling closed source software open source they're moving the window and confusing the entire concept of open source.

I would have rather see CodeCov stay completely closed than see them pollute and damage the open source community like this. Frankly, this abusive nonsense means I will stop using CodeCov and stop recommending them to anyone- which is what I did when Sentry went closed source as well.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#38

Post by thinkmassive »

dmm wrote: post #6

"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.

The license switches to Apache after four years.

To complete the metaphor: “I will only eat meat on Wednesdays for the next four years, after which I will be 100% vegetarian.”

As someone who is annoyed anytime proprietary-licensed software tries to capitalize on FOSS terminology, I concede that being immediately source-available with a guarantee of being OSS within a reasonable timeframe is still better than we’re likely to get from the majority of projects.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#39

Post by tedivm »

waithuh wrote: post #14
dmm wrote: post #6

"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…

I completely disagree with this- they aren't making an effort at all here, they're actively damaging a movement. They could have just said they were going shared source or one of the other "closed for use, but open for audit" licenses that exist. Instead they lied about what they're doing, and did so in a way that damages open source development.

Making an effort only counts as a good thing if they're making an effort to do good things. This isn't that though.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#40

Post by tedivm »

whit537 wrote: post #27
dmm wrote: post #6

"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.

> 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…

Open source has meaning, and you're polluting that meaning. It would be one thing if you were honest about it, but by continuing to call closed source software open you're proving that this isn't just a mistake but is actually maliciousness on your part.

Just say "We're making our source public, and after three years our legacy code will automatically become open source". Don't claim you're making something open source, but then have all these nasty hidden caveats. It's dishonest.

Post reply on HN