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

71–80 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#71

Post by tedivm »

whit537 wrote: post #66
zeeg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

It's kind of crappy for you and others at Sentry to attempt to unilaterally change the definition of open source, despite the fact that there clearly is opposition to it.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#72

Post by pydry »

tedivm wrote: post #59
pydry wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh please is exactly what I thought when I read your comment.

This is open source. It's entirely within the spirit of the movement.

The political imperative to twist the definition comes from tech monopolists, angry at a new wave of licenses that inhibit their ability to profit unhindered. You're getting outraged on their behalf.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#73

Post by candiddevmike »

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…

In a commercial context, was this planned or some last ditch effort to get more users/usage?

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#74

Post by cosmojg »

whit537 wrote: post #35
paulddraper wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.]

You should probably use your position to get the title of this blog post changed, then. "CodeCov will eventually be Open Source" is far less deceptive.

Or, more elegantly, "CodeCov is now Source Available".

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#75

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

whit537 wrote: post #35
paulddraper wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.]

Okay, then either title the page "CodeCov will be Open Source in 3 years", or wait 3 years and then release a post titled "A really old version of CodeCov is now Open Source".

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#76

Post by tedivm »

azdle wrote: post #62
zeeg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At this point it's hard not to think that they're purposefully ignoring this. It doesn't matter how many times I say that I don't care about their license, just their messaging, and yet we've got at least three employees from Sentry completely ignoring that and acting as if we don't think they have a right to license their own software.

It's a straw man that lets them ignore the actual issue people have.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#77

Post by zeeg »

candiddevmike wrote: post #73
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…

In a commercial context, was this planned or some last ditch effort to get more users/usage?

Planned - this is how we operate at Sentry, it just took us a bit of time to get it ready to release

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#78

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

danpalmer wrote: post #8
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.

To extend the metaphor though... only eating meat on Wednesdays is much better than eating it every day, and releasing the source and accepting contributions, even if under a licence not recognised as meeting the full open-source standards, is still much of the value.

Sure it's better, but if you do that and then call yourself a vegetarian people are still going to call you a liar. Nobody's objecting to the change, just the dishonesty.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#79

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

mdaniel wrote: post #60
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…

> 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 n…

Everything is always fine until someone comes along and starts selling hosting of Open Source SaaS projects. I cannot talk for Zulip and I truly hope they will succeed with not relicensing or closing part of the software.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#80

Post by pydry »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #69
pydry wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's the same thing. Theyre angry because they agree with big tech's gatekeeping of open source.

You may think it's purely an apolitical question of definition but it's about as apolitical as saying "Crimea is part of Russia".

Post reply on HN