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

81–90 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#81

Post by mort96 »

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…

Just don't fucking call your software open source when it's not open source. Don't try to leech off the goodwill people have towards open source by falsely claiming that your software is open source.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#82

Post by tedivm »

pydry wrote: post #72
tedivm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Read the first line of the BSL license-

> The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License.

The only way you can argue that it's open source is if you're purposefully trying to deceive people.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#83

Post by cosmojg »

whit537 wrote: post #50
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.

And yet you couldn't change the title to be less deceptive? "Open Source" means unhindered distribution, including for commercial use. Given that you're citing GNU, you should know better.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#85

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

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?

We generally Open Source our stuff. When we acquired specto for profiling all the stuff was opened up as well either under Open Source straight away for SDKs and supporting infrastructure or time locked under the BSL.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#86

Post by whit537 »

tedivm wrote: post #65
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…

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…

> your end goal is to exclude commercial reuse from the open source definition

This is fairly accurate, though there are a range of possible outcomes we would be satisfied with.

> my theory about embrace/extend/extinguish seems to be as accurate as I thought.

This is confused. Embrace/extend/extinguish means to initially participate in an open standard and then extend the standard in such a way that the non-extended version is sidelined.

What is the standard in this case? The Open Source Definition? What is the extension? A limit on commercial reuse in the OSD itself? A widely endorsed time-based license scheme such as BSL? Let's say this came to pass (use your imagination :P ). What is extinguished thereby? The OSD still stands. The supposed extinguisher is _more_ committed to the standard, not less. Other companies that use even weirder licenses like SSPL and ELv2 and now HFOIL :rolling-eyes: are likely brought back within an easier to reason about system and we can all stop arguing about this a couple times a year. There is net _more_ open source software in the world, in both the strong (current) and weak (time-delayed) sense.

That seems better to me than the current situation, and if in your view that is a change in the essence of open source, then yes, let's change open source. Change or die.

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

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#87

Post by pydry »

mort96 wrote: post #81
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…

Just don't fucking call your software open source when it's not open source. Don't try to leech off the goodwill people have towards open source by falsely claiming that your software is open source.

It's open source hated by big tech that undermines Jeff Bezos's goodwill.

It provides a revenue stream to actually pay developers to create more useful open source.

That's where the political imperative to gatekeep the term comes from.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#88

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

pydry wrote: post #80
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

No, it literally is not the same thing, and is literally not about big tech at all. It is in fact very simple: Is the thing you're calling Open Source actually Open Source, or is it not? You don't get to change what words mean because you think they should change, or because your business model isn't compatible with their real meaning but you'd really like to use them anyways.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#89

Post by cosmojg »

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 think the BSL constitutes as Open Source.

Did you even read the license?

Literally the first line of the "Notice" section:

"The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license."

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#90

Post by whit537 »

tedivm wrote: post #71
whit537 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why do you say unilaterally? MariaDB wrote the BSL, not us. Sentry is far from the only company with the problem of wanting to open-source its core products without exposing itself to the risk of other companies cannibalizing our business model without contributing to product development. This is an existential threat and the BSL protects us from it so we can keep improving Sentry.
Post reply on HN