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

51–60 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#51

Post by tedivm »

zeeg wrote: post #41
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 h…

The abusive part is the lie, especially the lie that is literally trying to change the definition of open source. There are sentry employees in this very thread trying to argue that "BSL is open source".

If CodeCov said "We are releasing our software under a shared source model" they would still be accomplishing all of the stuff you're saying (preventing AWS and Gitlab from using their product), but they wouldn't be lying about it. That's the major difference here.

The fact that this lie has damage beyond just their company is what's important. If we continue to shift the definition of "open" to include more and more cases of "closed" then the entire concept of open source loses it's meaning. Microsoft tried this in the 90s/2000s, and it's really disappointing to see companies that claim to be promoting open source attempting this today.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#52

Post by pydry »

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…

You're taking an explicitly pro rentier stance here and seeking to shame a business model that actually supports the development of open source.

Youre on the side of embrace, extend, extinguish.

These licenses exist because rentiers like Amazon and Microsoft are using their hosting market dominance to charge rents on open source and undermining the business model of companies like Elastic Search that actually create it.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#53

Post by tedivm »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #46
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 tha…

You can argue all you want, but it's not Open Source and even you agree about that.

Whether "source available" is better or not is an argument I don't really care about- it's just a red herring. The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#54

Post by cxr »

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…

The problem is that your colleagues chose to write, "Codecov is now Open Source". They didn't write, "Codecov will be open source in years 3.417* years".

* January 1, 2027

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#55

Post by tedivm »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #45
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…

You should really disclose that you work for Sentry/CodeCov in your comments about this.

Being "scheduled for open source in three years" is not the same as being open source today.

Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing. They could just say "shared source" or "source available" and take the exact same actions they're taking, just without misleading people.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#56

Post by cxr »

LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #9
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.

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).

> Would you rather they just keep their source completely closed then?

What you are doing right now is a pretty transparent motte-and-bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy>

Don't do that.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#57

Post by zeeg »

tedivm wrote: post #51
zeeg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

The abusive part is the lie, especially the lie that is literally trying to change the definition of open source. There are sentry employees in this very thread trying to argue that "BSL is open source". If CodeCov said "We are releasing our software under a shared source model" they would still be accomplishing all of the stuff you're saying (preventing AWS and Gitlab from using their product), but they wouldn't be…

I created the Sentry project, am the CTO, and represent one of the strongest voices in our company for why this opinion of open source must change or open source will continue to be unsustainable.

I disagree with your sentiment here, as I see plenty of negative effects from unfunded open source, from low ethics companies, and from proprietary softwares deterrent to progress.

BSL is allowing us to give $500,000 to other open source projects this year, in addition to allowing any team in the world to use our software. What other open source company is putting their money where their mouth is? Nothing obligates us to make any of these decisions.

We need to evolve our irrational views of idealism and find common ground that allows sustainability if we want open source to thrive.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#58

Post by that_guy_iain »

tedivm wrote: post #53
that_guy_iain wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

You can argue all you want, but it's not Open Source and even you agree about that. Whether "source available" is better or not is an argument I don't really care about- it's just a red herring. The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical.

> The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical.

That is a fair point. It annoys me too.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#59

Post by tedivm »

pydry wrote: post #52
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…

You're taking an explicitly pro rentier stance here and seeking to shame a business model that actually supports the development of open source. Youre on the side of embrace, extend, extinguish. These licenses exist because rentiers like Amazon and Microsoft are using their hosting market dominance to charge rents on open source and undermining the business model of companies like Elastic Search that actually create…

Oh please.

I am not saying they're required to be open source. I'm not saying they shouldn't be shared source. I'm simply saying they shouldn't lie about being open source. If CodeCov had the exact same license with the exact same restrictions, but didn't lie in their messaging, I wouldn't be commenting about it.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#60

Post by mdaniel »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #45
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…

> 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).

"impossible", huh? Wow, that must make Zulip the company really mad to hear they're going to close up shop tomorrow morning, and those GitLab folks are never going to go public

I mention GitLab as a nod to your open core comment because the MIT product they ship provides real value, as does their very real hosted offering

Post reply on HN