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

131–140 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#131

Post by whit537 »

thinkmassive wrote: post #128
whit537 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 paragra…

Good catch, thanks! Fixing in https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/pull/6.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#132

Post by zeeg »

cxr wrote: post #130
zeeg wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can literally make the same argument back to yourself, given _I_ and many others agree with the statement I made. Your opinion is fact but mine is opinion?

We’re not going to agree - that’s fine — but I’m not a liar. I’m simply stating our intent. We will keep pushing sustainable open source forward, and hope others will help.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#133

Post by closewith »

whit537 wrote: post #131
thinkmassive wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 paragra…

Good catch, thanks! Fixing in https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/pull/6 .

I'm not sure you can undo this with a pull request.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#134

Post by avinassh »

whit537 wrote: post #106
tedivm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Feels like a spirit vs. letter conflict. When we say "Codecov is now Open Source" we sincerely mean it at face value. We think we're embodying the spirit of open source. If the letter doesn't jibe then let's change it together. Also feels like we'd have to take this conversation to a video call or something to make any further progress. [disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]

I think just changing the title from 'CodeCov is now Open Source' to 'Source code of CodeCov is now available', it conveys the same spirit and meaning, without any misleading parts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#135

Post by cxr »

zeeg wrote: post #132
cxr wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can literally make the same argument back to yourself, given _I_ and many others agree with the statement I made. Your opinion is fact but mine is opinion? We’re not going to agree - that’s fine — but I’m not a liar. I’m simply stating our intent. We will keep pushing sustainable open source forward, and hope others will help.

> Your opinion is fact but mine is opinion?

No. Opinions are opinions, and facts are facts. Mixing them up is a type error.

It is not an "opinion" that if someone were claiming that there is widespread agreement of a distinction between "Open Source" and "open-source" (or "open source") then that is untrue—because that's how facts work: they are either true or they are untrue.

It's my opinion, on the other hand, that you guys are willfully dishonest and just kind of scummy, and so it is also my opinion that neither I nor any company I work at now or in the future should ever do business with you.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#136

Post by whit537 »

closewith wrote: post #133
whit537 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good catch, thanks! Fixing in https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/pull/6 .

I'm not sure you can undo this with a pull request.

This mistake only occurs in the self-hosted repo, which contains very little code. All of the "real" code is in the other four repos, each of which have their own LICENSE file that did not have this mistake.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#137

Post by tedivm »

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

If you look at it from a high level, Sentry wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to promote GPL/AGPL open source development because it's harder for them to profit off of it, but they don't want others to profit off of their work which is why they're sticking with a "source available" license.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#138

Post by tedivm »

Pannoniae wrote: post #92

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 th…

Sentry is one of the rent extracting companies. They want to extract value from the open source community, including marketing value, without actually being open source.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#139

Post by that_guy_iain »

tedivm wrote: post #138
Pannoniae wrote: post #92

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 th…

Sentry is one of the rent extracting companies. They want to extract value from the open source community, including marketing value, without actually being open source.

How so? You can use it for free without paying rent. You just can't compete with them without paying.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#140

Post by pseudalopex »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #111
azdle wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eventually open explains itself. And makes anyone not sure what it means aware to find out. It is superior entirely to lying.
Post reply on HN