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

141–150 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#141

Post by tedivm »

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 don't understand how the "head of open source" software can claim that a license which literally begins by saying it is not open source, is in fact open source. You're right gaslighting the community or you're engaging in self delusion.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#142

Post by pseudalopex »

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.]

Is this an official statement we can ignore the license differences? Or are Sentry nit pickers also?

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#143

Post by ezekg »

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…

> Come on in. Codecov is now open (source).

Literally made me LOL. Because I know the feeling.

I went with "open, source available" for my business. I like yours, too.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#144

Post by cxr »

ezekg wrote: post #143
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…

> Come on in. Codecov is now open (source). Literally made me LOL. Because I know the feeling. I went with "open, source available" for my business. I like yours, too.

That reeks of https://lwn.net/Articles/82305/>.

It's not clever. It's not snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. It's just deceptive.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#145

Post by ezekg »

cxr wrote: post #135
zeeg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There should be a distinction between FOSS and OSS. Nobody is trying to infringe on your FOSS rights. But some may argue the term OSS has changed to not strictly mean FOSS. The term "open source" at face value only implies "source available" until you read the license.

Ask 1,000 developers and I'd bet real money the majority would say projects under BSL and other non-"OSI approved" licenses are "open source." Not FOSS, but OSS.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#146

Post by pseudalopex »

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.]

The letter reflects the spirit valued by the community, OSI, and FSF. You are free to choose a different term to reflect a different spirit.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#147

Post by zeeg »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #139
tedivm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to mention any reasonable competitor is using our FOSS-licensed code to compete against us (such as our symbolification services). There is nuance and people don’t care about that. We will keep shipping.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#148

Post by zeeg »

ezekg wrote: post #145
cxr wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There should be a distinction between FOSS and OSS. Nobody is trying to infringe on your FOSS rights. But some may argue the term OSS has changed to not strictly mean FOSS. The term "open source" at face value only implies "source available" until you read the license. Ask 1,000 developers and I'd bet real money the majority would say projects under BSL and other non-"OSI approved" licenses are "open source." Not FOS…

In my experience most people think of open source as free plus source available. The average user doesn’t care much beyond that, which is supported by people’s willingness to add just about any dep to their software without validating licenses. No one will ever agree on terminology, but for me personally BSL is in the same category as GPL in that it achieves a bunch of the core principles, has less consequence, but also only works for certain types of software (eg sentry not libcurl).

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#149

Post by slgeorge »

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…

> I am so freaking sick of companies lying and exploiting open source. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish at it's finest.

I don't see how this is 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish'? This license guarantees that the code becomes Free Software at a maximum of 4 years - and in this case they've specified a shorter time period.

I'll give you that there are lots of games played in open source, so I understand that feeling of cynicism. But, this actually seems like an attempt to add some nuance to the commercialfree divide.

The reality is that many 'commercial' OSS companies have to take the open core route because understandably investors expect a return on their money. There are exceptions to this, but they are pretty rare. In fact, there are probably a whole set of SaaS companies that could be open source, but don't do so out of the fear of someone taking their code and 'free riding' them.

Finding a way to prefer the entity that sponsors/incubates the code base, while also genuinely allowing a community of contribution around it (not free riding) would be very beneficial in lots of situations. Maybe a better critique would be that this has some similarities to the Trolltech QT approach - but that's a different argument.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#150

Post by zeeg »

tedivm wrote: post #137
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not sure why you’re 20 comments deep on HN, but we forbid (like most companies) GPL software. It’s no harder to profit off GPL than it is Apache, but GPL is a disease that plagues the technology world. There’s a reason we convert our code (and release most code) under Apache and that’s because it’s true FOSS. GPL has strings attached just like BSL.

Clearly we hurt your feelings somewhere on the past, but let’s not go around spreading falsehoods.

Post reply on HN