CodeCov is now Open Source • Hacker News Board

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#61

Post by the_mitsuhiko » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:14 PM UTC

mdaniel wrote: post #48

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

In practice the first point relates to the second: on many projects you need to accept a CLA which gives the original right holder more permissions. That is entirely separately from BSL or else. That is not a donation.

In practical terms most of Sentry at this point is fully Apache 2 licensed.

> 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 […] for that betrayal

BSL is for me personally something I can fully stand behind. I understand others do not and I cannot change that. However I believe we all in the Open Source community need to find better ways to have commercial and Open Source community incentives to align. BSL is the best I personally found so far.

It means we can work in the open, don’t need to do things we would not stand behind to protect the business etc. You can today like 10 years ago do what you want with Sentry what you want.

> 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

The rolling Sentry commits are already ahead of the ancient BSD forks I’m aware of.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#62

Post by azdle » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:14 PM UTC

zeeg wrote: post #57

tedivm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oth…

No one is saying there's anything wrong with releasing your code under the BSL. What's wrong is that you're lying and claiming you're open sourcing your code.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#63

Post by capableweb » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:15 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #30

closewith wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So not open source.

Mostly open source.

If you go by the OSI definition of Open Source (which, I know, not every does), then it's either open source or not. In this case, that license is not open source.

https://opensource.org/osd/

> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

From CodeCov's BSL which goes directly against the above:

> You may make use of the Licensed Work, provided that you do not use the Licensed Work for a Competing Service.

-----

With that said, huge applaud to CodeCov for even making the code public under a BSL license, it's obviously a great step compared to status quo. I just wish they'd call it "Source Available/Public" instead of "Open Source" as many already seem to have troubles with what open source means.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#64

Post by pydry » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:15 PM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #55

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing.

They are. In no way was I confused about what they are doing when I read this.

It's practically speaking open source for everybody with a poison pill for companies like AWS that have successfully charged rents on open source without giving anything back (like elastic search).

Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom in order to fund the development of open source appears to make some people extremely angry.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#65

Post by tedivm » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:15 PM UTC

zeeg wrote: post #57

tedivm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oth…

There are a lot of companies that support open source (Github has given away far more than you have, other companies sponsor employees to work on software directly, etc etc), you aren't special just because you claim that you're an open source company. It's not the BSL that gives you the ability to donate money, it's the fact that you sell a profitable product. You could sell a proftable product with a closed source license, or you could call your license shared source, and still donate money.

That being said, I think this is the first time I've seen someone at Sentry openly admit that you are trying to change the overall definition of open source and I do thank you for at least admitting it. If your end goal is to exclude commercial reuse from the open source definition then my theory about embrace/extend/extinguish seems to be as accurate as I thought.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#66

Post by whit537 » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

zeeg wrote: post #57

tedivm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oth…

> literally trying to change the definition of open source

1. The only way for businesses to release their core products under OSI-approved licenses is through a time delay such as the BSL.

2. It's good for businesses to release their core products under OSI-approved licenses.

3. Therefore, some concept of time-delayed release must be included in the definition of open source.

I'll concede that this is an evolution or refinement of the definition of open source, but not a change to the essence.

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

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#67

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

Correction: "CodeCov is now Source-Available for Noncommercial Use"

Literally the first line of the BSL: "The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license."

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#68

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:18 PM UTC

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…

> As of today, CodeCov is scheduled for full, OSI compliant Open Source.

Then title the blog post, "CodeCov will eventually be Open Source" instead of being deceptive.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#69

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:20 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #64

tedivm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing. They are. In no way was I confused about what they are doing when I read this. It's practically speaking open source for everybody with a poison pill for companies like AWS that have successfully charged rents on open source without giving anything back (like elastic search). Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom in o…

> Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom appears to make some people extremely angry.

That's not why anyone is angry. They're angry because it's labeled "Open Source" in the title, and then turns out to be not actually Open Source.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#70

Post by the_mitsuhiko » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 4:20 PM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #55

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I was assuming that writing “us” would be clear about my association.

From where I’m standing there is a massive difference between “source available” and BSL with Apache 2. The latter does not require goodwill from us in the future.