Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#151

Post by josephcsible »

anonymous_sorry wrote: post #124
josephcsible wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your CONTRIBUTING.md file says "By contributing, you agree that your contributions will be licensed under its MIT License." Since OpenSign is AGPLv3, why don't you allow contributions under the same license, if the self hosted version will always be free? I'm worried that the purpose of that might be to let you make it proprietary later.

I guess this allows them integrate with proprietary code on their back end if necessary, whilst making it hard for a competitor to take their code and undercut them, since most corps with proprietary software to protect won't touch AGPLv3 with a barge pole. Nothing prevents an AGPLv3 fork if OpenSign goes proprietary in future. I'd rather this approach than yet another non-standard Amazon-proof licence.

> I guess this allows them integrate with proprietary code on their back end if necessary

Couldn't they have accomplished that just by asking for GPLv3 instead of AGPLv3? That would let them do so without letting them make the self-hosted version non-free, unlike asking for MIT.

> Nothing prevents an AGPLv3 fork if OpenSign goes proprietary in future.

Yes, but this would be true for almost any FOSS license offered and regardless of what they ask of contributors.

> I'd rather this approach than yet another non-standard Amazon-proof licence.

I very much agree with this.

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#153

Post by Clustered1441 »

alexopensource wrote: post #107
johnchristopher wrote: post #104

> You will need to create an AWS S3 bucket or digital ocean space in order to store your uploaded documents The org I work for would love to self-host on-premise a digital signing solution so they definitely won't use external dependencies like AWS. Theoretically they could swap with minio but last time we used it it was not a drop-in replacement yet.

We will be supporting more storage providers including self hosting soon.

Thank you so much for your great work

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#154

Post by gnarlouse »

hatsix wrote: post #91
jcoder wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of issue do you have in mind? By all accounts, the functionality or OpenOffice, LibreOffice, and Google’s suite are the same as Microsoft Office. There’s no theft unless they _actually stole intellectual property_

The commenter is confused, they mean infringing, not theft. Theft is theft, no reason to get IP law involved. Infringement can happen without intent. I don't know who would be liable, the open source company with little revenue, or the customers who are just using the software.

Thank you, yes I mean infringement.

Say big Hooli company builds product/platform “A” and charges arm and foot for usage. Having tried the platform I personally find it ridiculous anybody is paying for this because I successfully (lone developer) hack together a trimmed down working clone of the core system *in under a week*. Furthermore, core aspects of Product/Platform “A” are open-source technology, in non trivial ways (like I’m not saying “oh they use YML for config files”, I’m saying “core engine component they’re using is explicitly open source”).

If I decide to open source my clone, am I asking for trouble?

This is all hypothetical, I’m not soliciting actual legal advice.

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#155

Post by hardwaresofton »

remram wrote: post #148
hardwaresofton wrote: post #74

The future of open source continues to be AGPL. [EDIT]: referring to (my own) article: https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...

AGPL still allows somebody else to offer your software as a paid service. This is dangerous for a lot of business models.

This is correct -- in fact, the article I posted goes over exactly that (though it is somewhat buried).

> There’s one caveat everyone is missing this is only a problem if you planned on modifying the software and not contributing back!. If you either do not modify the software or contribute back your changes you’re free to host and offer services built on AGPL.

I'm a bit worried about what all these companies will do once smaller/larger players change their stances appropriately and start hosting their software as a service. Will people run to BSL/Elastic/SSPL?

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#156

Post by Animats »

alexopensource wrote: post #19
Animats wrote: post #16

If you get something to sign, can you modify it and send it back to the other party so they can sign the modified version? Or is this a "take it or leave it" system?

Its really important to preserve the integrity of the document during the signing process because of which modifications other than annotations are currently not allowed. We are building this to support an open architecture(micro frontend based add-ons). The two add-ons currently under development are - - A document organizer for signed/in-progress documents as we believe organizing legal documents is very different…

In other words, no.

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#157

Post by vitus »

Guvante wrote: post #136
vitus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this year the Supreme Court has set a new precedent that they can now overturn their own rulings from decades earlier What happened this year specifically? Dobbs was in June 2022, but that isn't even close to the first time that the Supreme Court overturned precedent from 50+ years prior -- Brown v Board largely overturned Plessy v Ferguson ("separate but equal") from nearly 60 years prior. And, we've had plenty of…

Eliminating separate but equal was based on the evidence of how that statue was used. Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used. This kind of test is effectively in the eye of the beholder. You can say whatever you want and disproving it requires Goldilocks evidence. You can't talk about the case law the American system wa…

> Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used.

Textualism and originalism have been in play for decades -- off the top of my head: 2008's DC v Heller basically codified today's broad interpretation of the second amendment's protections.

I don't personally agree with the decisions (among other things, the resulting patchwork application of laws has meant that your access to abortion is dependent on how strong your state's Democratic bent in the statehouse(s) is), but it's not novel to the past decade, even. The only new development from the past 5-10 years is the presence of 5 votes on the court willing to overturn Roe's long-standing precedent.

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#158

Post by Guvante »

vitus wrote: post #157
Guvante wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliminating separate but equal was based on the evidence of how that statue was used. Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used. This kind of test is effectively in the eye of the beholder. You can say whatever you want and disproving it requires Goldilocks evidence. You can't talk about the case law the American system wa…

> Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used. Textualism and originalism have been in play for decades -- off the top of my head: 2008's DC v Heller basically codified today's broad interpretation of the second amendment's protections. I don't personally agree with the decisions (among other things, the resulting patchwork…

Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion)

Of course it is similar it was a test bed to pull this.

At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way.

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#159

Post by Helmut10001 »

grst wrote: post #119
Helmut10001 wrote: post #102

I wish there was a free alternative to the German/Europe QES ("Qualified Signature"). The cheapest currently is about 20 EUR/ Month and allows you to make 3 Signatures. Others ask for 50 EUR for each QES. I hate to pay for my own Signature! We need something like Let's Encrypt for signatures.

Other EU countries offer this for free, e.g. https://www.a-trust.at/pdfsign What's even worse is that in Germany most companies and authorities refuse to accept those digitally signed PDFs.

I wanted to come back here and add a thank you. I registered at a-trust through their EU-Identity Login and now I am able to sign 5 Signatures (QES) for free each month. Great!

Re: Show HN: OpenSign – Open source alternative to DocuSign

#160

Post by vitus »

Guvante wrote: post #158
vitus wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used. Textualism and originalism have been in play for decades -- off the top of my head: 2008's DC v Heller basically codified today's broad interpretation of the second amendment's protections. I don't personally agree with the decisions (among other things, the resulting patchwork…

Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) Of course it is similar it was a test bed to pull this. At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that th…

> Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion)

What, the Federalist Society? In as far as the last three justices willing to overturn Roe were hand-selected by them, yes, but there was little doubt that any of them would vote to overturn Roe even before their confirmations.

> At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way.

On one hand, there's a difference between who authored those opinions (say what you will about Scalia, but his application of originalism didn't have as clear of a partisan bent). On the other, there was clearly an effort to thread the needle such that both Thomas (who wanted Dobbs to go so much further) and Roberts (who has started to think about his court's legacy and its public perception) were willing to sign onto said opinion.

I suspect we would have had the same style of opinions 5 years ago if it had been Ginsburg instead of Scalia who passed away in 2016.

Post reply on HN