CodeCov is now Open Source • Hacker News Board

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#171

Post by whit537 » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 8:39 PM UTC

FYI we have a follow-up at https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/.

> Yesterday we announced that Codecov is now “Open Source”, and we messed up in two ways:

> - We wrongly used the term Open Source; while unintentional, we should have known better

> - We let our emotions get the best of trying to explain our position, rather than stepping back and addressing the problem

> I want to talk about both of these, how we made the mistake, why it’s important to us, and what we plan to do about this to improve the conversation in the future.

HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36990036

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#172

Post by ewan-mclean » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:47 AM UTC

Pannoniae wrote: post #159

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.

Where is the "extracting value" part? If you mean "calling their product open source while you think it is actually not" that is a really weak justification. By extracting value I literally mean using open source code as a SaaS model then not contributing back anything. Getting angry over names is not seeing the forest from the trees...

So in your view, what is the opposite of "closed source"?

Is your definition the one that 99% of English speaking humans would agree with?

Why should the opposite of "closed closed source" be one groups ideological checklist, that's really an offshoot of "free software", a radical, anti-property ideology that is generally not accepted - and thus the GPL licenses are generally unpopular.

Why does the OSI bother to maintain a trademark on "OSI Approved License"? Isn't that hypocritical? If not, why not?

In my view, the OSI does have value, and "OSI Approved Licenses" are useful to know about, just like "FSF Approved Licenses" are good to know about... But they should not pretend to own language and have trademark on "Open Source" when the USPTO denied them a trademark:

https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

Also, there is extensive documented "prior to 1998" use of the term "open-source" meaning exactly "the opposite of closed-source", rather than someones ideological checklist:

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

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#173

Post by ewan-mclean » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:50 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

I think you are exactly correct.

It's deeply disturbing that the OSI out of one side of their mouth says "indie developers, you should forgo any right to your own software or not truly open-source" and out of the other side of their mouth collects donations from giant internet monopolies that freeload...

MIT/BSD/Public Domain licenses long pre-date the OSI.

The FSF is it's own thing...

What's even the point of the OSI beyond trying to pressure developers to drop their creations into the public domain to be stolen?

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#174

Post by daniel_riel » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 5:17 AM UTC

sontek wrote: post #119

mdaniel wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree with you.

If the choice is Open-Core vs Non OSI Approved License(tm) Open-Source, I definitely support the latter.

The OSI needs to be honest and push "OSI Approved Licenses(tm)"... Instead they're like the Simpson's Old Man Yells at Cloud meme, trying to pretend their special interest group has a trademark on "open-source"

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/old-man-yells-at-cloud

Even though they admit that trademark was denied

https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#175

Post by daniel_riel » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 6:24 AM UTC

JeremyNT wrote: post #126

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 tim…

Perhaps the real trickery is the OSI's shady lawyer led campaign after they were denied the trademark on open-source(tm)

https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

And after they had admitted that:

> While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060411080543/http://www.openso...

To pressure developers that believe in "open-source" as in the opposite of "closed-source", to also accept their entire anti-developer property "Free Software" ideology.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#176

Post by ewan-mclean » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 6:34 AM UTC

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…

So why did the OSI write this?:

> While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060411080543/http://www.openso...

Why did the OSI apply for a trademark on the term Open-Source?

Why does the OSI continue pay the trademark registration fee to renew the unambiguous term "OSI Approved License" and why don't you adopt that term?

Perhaps because both you and the OSI know that when you focus on the term "OSI Approved Licenses", it's just another word for "free software", and most people that are interested in "open-source" are interested because it's the opposite of "closed-source", not interested because they want to associate with the FSFs anti-developer property ideology.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#177

Post by max_faust » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 7:04 AM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #153

zeeg wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

> but we forbid (like most companies) GPL software. Er, what? GPL is completely fine for corporate use; it doesn't even trigger until you distribute to third parties. > 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. It really doesn't. And if you're at a point wh…

[dead]

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#178

Post by Pannoniae » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 7:59 AM UTC

ewan-mclean wrote: post #172

Pannoniae wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the "extracting value" part? If you mean "calling their product open source while you think it is actually not" that is a really weak justification. By extracting value I literally mean using open source code as a SaaS model then not contributing back anything. Getting angry over names is not seeing the forest from the trees...

So in your view, what is the opposite of "closed source"? Is your definition the one that 99% of English speaking humans would agree with? Why should the opposite of "closed closed source" be one groups ideological checklist, that's really an offshoot of "free software", a radical, anti-property ideology that is generally not accepted - and thus the GPL licenses are generally unpopular. Why does the OSI bother to mai…

Btw I think you are replying to the wrong person, from your post it looks like you wanted to reply to my parent.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#179

Post by cxr » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 11:50 AM UTC

ewan-mclean wrote: post #176

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…

So why did the OSI write this?: > While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision. https://web.archive.org/web/20060411080543/http://www.openso... Why did the OSI apply for a trademark on the term Open-Source? Why does the OSI continue pay the trademar…

> So why did the OSI write[... ¶] While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision.

That passage says two things:

1. "open source" means what OSI says it means

2. there are people like OP who exist

OP does exist. That's a self-evident and indisputable fact. Were you expecting me to argue otherwise?

Acknowledging that it's true, however, is completely different from saying that the definition they're using is widely agreed upon or that there is a difference between "Open Source" and "open source" that is wide accepted. (The first sentence in that passage actually says the opposite...)