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

111–120 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#111

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

azdle wrote: post #100
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

FWIW that's what I call it, but that's not exactly a well known enough term.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#112

Post by sontek »

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.

Practically speaking from an enduser standpoint who:

- Likes to self-host stuff for homelab purposes

- Has business needs for shipping self-hosted services in airgapped and on-prem solutions where SaaS isn't available.

Every piece of BSL licensed software that I run (CockroachDB, Couchbase, MariaDB, Sentry, etc) are all open source to me. I can read the code, I can contribute, and I can track changes being added by others.

Your metaphor doesn't hold up because from an user standpoint this IS opensource. I'm not creative enough to come up with a good metaphor but it'd be something closer to:

"I've created a community book collection that anyone is free to take from. But you aren't allowed to take the books and sell them"

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#113

Post by mort96 »

pydry wrote: post #87
mort96 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not open source.

Many people find it easier (or think it's easier) to generate a revenue stream from selling closed source software than from selling open source software, so they decide to make their software closed source.

We need to gatekeep terms for them to retain their meaning. We can't just accept it when tech companies try to change the meaning of "open source" to mean "we published the source code so you can read it". The term source-available exists, and it means something different from open source. If these people announced that they're making their software source-available, everyone would be happy, but they're not.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#114

Post by sontek »

mdaniel wrote: post #110
sontek wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitLab is a good example of not actually opensource. They are open corse which is much worse than BSL. There are tons of features they don't allow you to use even if you self-host unless you purchase a license. BSL lets you use all features and self-host as long as you aren't a reseller. It is the best model I've seen.

I would enjoy seeing the specific features of the MIT codebase that they "don't allow" you to use

All the features they exclude from the MIT code base and only include in the The GitLab Enterprise Edition...

https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/#compare-options

There is a box for "Open Source - MIT License". You'll notice most of the features are not covered under it.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#115

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

Hey, I think I thought of a way to make everyone happy here: Why not dual-license it as AGPL / BSL-Apache? That way it is Open Source right now, but under the AGPL so AWS won't touch it, and then in 3 years it also becomes available under the more permissive Apache license.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#116

Post by mdaniel »

sontek wrote: post #114
mdaniel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would enjoy seeing the specific features of the MIT codebase that they "don't allow" you to use

All the features they exclude from the MIT code base and only include in the The GitLab Enterprise Edition... https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/#compare-options There is a box for "Open Source - MIT License". You'll notice most of the features are not covered under it.

> All the features they exclude from the MIT code base and only include in the The GitLab Enterprise Edition...

> > I would enjoy seeing the specific features of the MIT codebase that they "don't allow" you to use

I feel we are not on the same page. But, good luck with your BSL future

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#117

Post by sontek »

danpalmer wrote: post #93
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I just responded with the same thing but think you said it in a better way!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36971490#36973675

This is open source to most of us. I can read the code, use the code, and contribute to the project. I don't care if I can't make a SaaS offering of it.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#118

Post by JimDabell »

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…

Why are you so attached to calling something open source when it is not open source? You know it will piss people off. You know it will generate bad will. You can avoid all of that by simply not calling it open source. Why are you so insistent upon using deceptive labelling? Where is the benefit?

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#119

Post by sontek »

mdaniel wrote: post #116
sontek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the features they exclude from the MIT code base and only include in the The GitLab Enterprise Edition... https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/#compare-options There is a box for "Open Source - MIT License". You'll notice most of the features are not covered under it.

> All the features they exclude from the MIT code base and only include in the The GitLab Enterprise Edition... > > I would enjoy seeing the specific features of the MIT codebase that they "don't allow" you to use I feel we are not on the same page. But, good luck with your BSL future

What do you mean we aren't on the same page? These are two options when opensourcing things:

- GitLab went with Open Core and kept most of their features closed source and not available to the community

- Companies that choose BSL provide all their features to the community both from a source available standpoint AND a usage standpoint.

In my opinion BSL is a MUCH better place to be in than the open core model.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#120

Post by zeeg »

We have updated the language on our blog post to the more commonly accepted “open-source” terminology.

I’d encourage everyone who cares about OSS to participate and consider the changes happening in the broader technology sector. Sustainability is more important now than ever in the ecosystem, and we need to evolve our thinking and tolerance. We need to look deeply at the goals of open source and how we can continue to achieve them, and that isn’t going to be arguing about what once was.

Many of the Sentry folks who have chimed in here (including myself) are not here because they work for Sentry, but because they have contributed to open source for the better part of their careers, and many of us in very significant ways (certainly with software you’ve used). We care about improving and protecting the ecosystem. It does no one any good when this community is hostile towards the folks trying to help.

Post reply on HN