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

41–50 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#41

Post by zeeg »

tedivm wrote: post #37

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 usin…

What’s abusive about it? 80% of Sentrys source code is licensed under Apache-2.0 (and is how Codecov will be in a few years) which is far more than what everyone’s favorite open core companies have done.

Is it abusive to stop companies like AWS or GitLab from taking your work and selling it? Is it abusive to try to let as many people as possible use your software?

I’ll tell you what’s abusive - people thinking they have the rights to other peoples work unconditionally, or that they can profiteer off it without contributing back.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#42

Post by ahtihn »

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…

> shooing away acts like these just make going open source all around a worse business choice

I don't understand? They're not going open source so why is the reaction in this thread making actually going open source a worse choice?

You can't expect a good reaction when you announce that a product is now "Open Source" and then not actually use an Open Source license.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#43

Post by whit537 »

thinkmassive wrote: post #38
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 li…

Three years here (four is the BSL default).

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#44

Post by tedivm »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #19
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.

I think the BSL constitutes as Open Source. I’m obviously biased here as someone working at Sentry but here is my reasoning. If you download source today and just wait long enough it is 100%, unquestionably Open Source as per OSI Definition. There are projects that only release Open Source licensed code in very irregular intervals and they are still Open Source. BSL is rolling Open Source with delay.

>BSL is rolling Open Source with delay.

.... which means it's not open source.

The "irregular interval" companies general release the source at the same time they deliver a new software version. It's not a fair comparison at all, since you can always get the open source code for the software you're running.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#45

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

tedivm wrote: post #37

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 usin…

> I would have rather see CodeCov stay completely closed than see them pollute and damage the open source community like this.

That seems highly irrational. As of today, CodeCov is scheduled for full, OSI compliant Open Source. In a few years people can fully fork and do what they want with it under the Apache 2 license. How is this not an improvement over closed source CodeCov?

Sure, Apache 2 straight away would be nicer but in practice that’s really impossible to accommodate in a commercial context. The only alternative I know is where you keep the interesting pieces closed (eg: open core).

For most people the BSL restrictions won’t matter and if you find interesting code in Sentry or CodeCov you want under Apache ahead of time, you can always mail us.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#46

Post by that_guy_iain »

tedivm wrote: post #37

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 usin…

It's not closed source. They're source available. Which I would argue is better than both Open and Closed source.

It provides the flexibility of open source with the benefit of being supported and maintained by an actual company that has actual resources. There are percentage wise very few open source projects that have full time resources on them. There are so many tools/projects that if you report a bug to them that bug isn't getting fixed and if you create a PR to fix it it's nto getting merged because the maintainer has moved on with their lives and maintain it as a minor tiny hobby with 1-2 hours a month (if that) and there are tons where they've been taken over for vital maintainance only by a hardcore few that maintain lots of tools since the original maintainer has moved on. This annoys me about open source. It feels super unprofessional and normally we only get something that is maintained properly when it's closed source.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#47

Post by [deleted] »

thinkmassive wrote: post #38
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 li…

[deleted]

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#48

Post by mdaniel »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #19
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.

I think the BSL constitutes as Open Source. I’m obviously biased here as someone working at Sentry but here is my reasoning. If you download source today and just wait long enough it is 100%, unquestionably Open Source as per OSI Definition. There are projects that only release Open Source licensed code in very irregular intervals and they are still Open Source. BSL is rolling Open Source with delay.

I'm sure I'm going to regret weighing into this, but the reason your "with delay" means it is not open source in my mind is that:

- it would require a fork since there is no way Sentry (the project stewards, not the company) is going to review and merge 5 year old code [I'm aware there's already a pseudo-fork but this bullet is to highlight what _contribution_ means in the context of 5 year old code]

- if I'm using Sentry today, and I find a bug or want to submit an improvement that scratches my itch, I donate that work to Sentry the corporation

- if corporate raiders continue to appropriate the term Open Source to mean "whatever marketing says we can get away with claiming" then in dilutes the goodwill from companies who really do use Open Source

I have an special bitterness in my heart for companies that start out with a FOSS license and then rug pull to a non free license. I will never forgive you nor SourceGraph for that betrayal

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#50

Post by whit537 »

solarkraft wrote: post #21

> The code is available now for you to run for yourself, study, modify, and redistribute in original and modified form. The BSL means you can’t sell hosting, but after a period of time the code reverts to the OSI-approved Apache 2.0 license. That's pretty good, to be honest. Congratulations!

Thanks! I wrote that part, referring of course to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms and trying to be as straightforward as I could.
Post reply on HN