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

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#91

Post by Terretta »

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…

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

Or, you know, use the existing definitions for that transitional stage.

Your assertion is neither "therefore" nor "must".

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#92

Post by Pannoniae »

Oh come on. You are being angry at the wrong target. If you become angry about this technically not being "open source" (by the OSI definition) you are just helping the rent-extracting monopolies in Big Tech to steal more.

The OSI definition was accepted due to corporate lobbying and I imagine this probably also includes astroturfing to apply pressure on companies who don't go "all the way" and basically subsidise their competitors for free.

This gives me strong ElasticSearch vibes - everyone got mad at Elastic for changing the licence, and no one gave a damn about Amazon building a moat around the technology, profiting massively from it yet leaving the burden of maintenance to Elastic.

Anti-disclaimer: I have zero affiliation towards this project or company.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#93

Post by danpalmer »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #78
danpalmer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Colloquially, almost all of the perceived value of "open source" code is that the source is available. Terms like "shared source" are unclear and not useful.

I think the constructive criticism is useful here, but for all but the most in-the-know this is open source as they see it, and describing it as such is just using terminology in the way that society has decided it should be used.

If you feel that the term "open source" has become meaningless as a result, I'd recommend using the term "free software" instead to mean software that is both source-available and licenced in a way that supports software freedom.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#94

Post by Terretta »

whit537 wrote: post #90
tedivm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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."

BSL doesn't try to redefine open source, it's clear it's transitional. So you're trying to do something MariaDB didn't do and the BSL doesn't do.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#95

Post by thinkmassive »

whit537 wrote: post #43
thinkmassive wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Here’s the exact line from your license file:

Change Date:2023-06-29 2027-01-01

Seems like it should really be interpreted to mean the Apache license started applying on June 29, 2023.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#96

Post by cosmojg »

paulddraper wrote: post #29
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 a heck of a lot closer to "open source" than to "closed source". It's open source, except that you can't use it in a competing commercial product. So for 99% of uses, open source.

There's a term for that already: source-available.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#97

Post by zeeg »

YPCrumble wrote: post #31
zeeg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about security for us, but about accessibility of technology. Open source lifts the barriers on who can use software (eg outside of politics, compliance, etc), and enables knowledge share. It’s - from Sentrys angle - how we enable any developer to take advantage of our technology, hopefully enabling them to solve other problems and grow the industry.

So cool to see the CTO of Sentry here! This makes some sense to me - I'm actually following an issue with Sentry I had recently and although it's not being fixed anytime soon at least I know the status. https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-python/issues/370 I'd love to believe that one day someone will crack the nut of "Sentry puts a bounty on this issue and YPCrumble decides to make a PR because it's something he's e…

Will make sure folks see this internally. Thanks for the feedback!

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#98

Post by BowBun »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #70
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.

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.

Most good-faith commenters put clear statements about their association to what they're defending. Not doing so immediately makes me suspicious.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#99

Post by arp242 »

tedivm wrote: post #40
whit537 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Open source has meaning, and you're polluting that meaning. It would be one thing if you were honest about it, but by continuing to call closed source software open you're proving that this isn't just a mistake but is actually maliciousness on your part. Just say "We're making our source public, and after three years our legacy code will automatically become open source". Don't claim you're making something open sour…

IMHO it's also dishonest to claim there is "one true definition" of the term "Open Source", when in fact 1) there have been a zillion discussion like this now, which demonstrates this consensus doesn't exist, 2) "Open Source" has seen usage going back to as far as 1985 at the least.[1]

All of this is reminds me of the "if people keep misusing your design, then it sucks"[2] story from the other day. If you don't want people to "misuse" [common and obvious adjective] + [common noun] then choose a better term.

[1]: https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36939648

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#100

Post by azdle »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #70
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.

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.

Can I suggest calling it "Eventually-Open Source Software"?

> Software that has source code available that automatically becomes open source at some explicitly specified, unchangeable, point in the future.

Post reply on HN