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

121–130 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#121

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#122

Post by zeeg »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #115

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.

Personally most of us at Sentry who made these decisions don’t like the invasive open source licenses. It was between this and allowing others to sell our software (which is very demoralizing), but we didn’t want to limit adoption and some companies won’t run GPL software due to the risks.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#123

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

zeeg wrote: post #122
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #115

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.

Personally most of us at Sentry who made these decisions don’t like the invasive open source licenses. It was between this and allowing others to sell our software (which is very demoralizing), but we didn’t want to limit adoption and some companies won’t run GPL software due to the risks.

Right, so dual license it to allow both

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#124

Post by cxr »

zeeg wrote: post #120

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…

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

What are you talking about? That doesn't fix anything. It'd have been closer to the truth (and physically easier) to update it to say, "Codecov is not Open Source".

"Open Source" and "open-source"[1] are not two different things. You're just rearranging the deck chairs. Using the latter form doesn't soften the transgression.

In an earlier comment[2], you insisted "Our goal is not to argue about proper nouns". Yet... here you are. Why?

Just fix your mistake.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software>

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36973452>

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#125

Post by zeeg »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #123
zeeg wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally most of us at Sentry who made these decisions don’t like the invasive open source licenses. It was between this and allowing others to sell our software (which is very demoralizing), but we didn’t want to limit adoption and some companies won’t run GPL software due to the risks.

Right, so dual license it to allow both

We explicitly _do not_ want to promote GPL as we do not believe in it as the right tool. It’s not exclusively around protecting ourselves, but also how we do it. Decisions like this are more rooted in what we think is right for the world than a business demand (tho BSL for us, the decision to move off BSD, was triggered by what some companies were doing).

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#126

Post by JeremyNT »

zeeg wrote: post #120

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…

Listen, you can (and should!) use whatever license you feel works best for your business.

But the trickery around calling the BSL "Open Source" (now "open-source") in the blog post is a very bad look.

The BSL license - in your own repos [0] - has this text:

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

The "change date" is 2026-06-31 and the BSL allows one, at that time, to re-license under a real open source license.

What you're doing amounts to a pre-announcement of open sourcing something 3 years from now. To say it's "now open-source" as the blog post currently claims is quite misleading.

[0] https://github.com/codecov/codecov-api/blob/main/LICENSE#L25

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#127

Post by zeeg »

cxr wrote: post #124
zeeg wrote: post #120

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…

> We have updated the language on our blog post to the more commonly accepted “open-source” terminology. What are you talking about? That doesn't fix anything. It'd have been closer to the truth (and physically easier) to update it to say, "Codecov is not Open Source". "Open Source" and "open-source"[1] are not two different things. You're just rearranging the deck chairs. Using the latter form doesn't soften the tra…

Open Source, as a proper noun, is generally considered associated with the OSD from OSI. We are trying to clarify that what we’re representing is not that definition, but are representing what we feel is the spirit of open source software.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#128

Post by thinkmassive »

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.]

Exact text copied from the license file:

    Change Date:2023-06-29          2027-01-01
    
    Change License:       Apache License, Version 2.0


    Effective on the Change Date, or the fourth anniversary of the first publicly available distribution of a specific version of the Licensed Work under this License, whichever comes first, the Licensor hereby grants you rights under the terms of the Change License, and the rights granted in the paragraph above terminate.
Did Sentry inadvertently open source CodeCov under Apache terms as of June 29, 2023?

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#129

Post by tedivm »

whit537 wrote: post #86
tedivm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Open Source has always meant without limitations on use. You want to extend the standard to add a limitation on use, which would in turn radically change the definition of open source (to the point where you'd extinguish the current definition). Rather than simply accept that open source doesn't work for your business, at least for your core product, you want to change the definition of open source to something that it isn't.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#130

Post by cxr »

zeeg wrote: post #127
cxr wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have updated the language on our blog post to the more commonly accepted “open-source” terminology. What are you talking about? That doesn't fix anything. It'd have been closer to the truth (and physically easier) to update it to say, "Codecov is not Open Source". "Open Source" and "open-source"[1] are not two different things. You're just rearranging the deck chairs. Using the latter form doesn't soften the tra…

Open Source, as a proper noun, is generally considered associated with the OSD from OSI. We are trying to clarify that what we’re representing is not that definition, but are representing what we feel is the spirit of open source software.

I fear this is an instance of that old Upton Sinclair/H. L. Mencken quip—never be so foolish as to waste your breath believing that you can get a man to understand something which his salary requires him not to understand.

Engage with the argument you are being confronted with.

There is no difference between "Open Source" and "open-source". The former is generally associated with the OSD, and the latter is generally associated with people who insist on hyphenating* things—but are referring to the same thing; there is no "open-source" definition that is more relaxed than the "Open Source" definition. You are lying if you want to pretend that there is a widely recognized difference. There isn't.

The problem never was that you're using the Business Software License. The problem is that you are _lying_.

So stop lying.

It's that easy.

* EDIT: And removing the hyphen[1] doesn't fix anything. You have been through no fewer than four different variations of the title at this point[2][3][4]. The hyphen is not the problem. The problem is that you are lying. Try just not doing that.

1. https://archive.is/XJz9r>

2. https://archive.is/aSH9K>

3. Unarchived version that used lowercase "open-source" with a hyphen, cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36974314>

4. https://archive.is/XJz9r>

Post reply on HN