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

Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#71

Post by mort96 »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #45
harshithmul wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your suggestion. You’re absolutely right; we are actively exploring licensing options, including AGPL, to ensure that our product remains protected. We value input from the community and are open to suggestions and assistance in making this decision. Our goal is to prevent unauthorized copying and resale of our product under different names while fostering a collaborative and innovative environment.

You can also expressly state that you have a commercial license too. Your entire license can be something like “ If you’re using it for commercial purposes, you must see a commercial license with XYZ. Otherwise, for all noncommercial uses, you may use the software according to the terms of the AGPL license.”

Wait which non-commercial uses would there be for this product? I guess you'd only use it as an issue tracker for open source projects with no funding?

Regardless, by doing that the software would no longer be open source, and it seems like being open source is a significant part of the marketing strategy currently.

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#72

Post by evantbyrne »

KolmogorovComp wrote: post #68
evantbyrne wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Business Source License allows for redistribution and modification of code. Calling it not open-source because it restricts third-parties from slapping a logo on it and selling licenses seems like a stretch. imo licenses like the BSL are really the direction that open-source should be heading in, because they allow the original author to retain their rights while avoiding exploitation by rando corporations.

No, it’s not an open-source license because it’s not OSI compliant https://opensource.org/licenses . Open-source has a specific meaning that too many people don’t know or forgot.

This feels like splitting hairs and unnecessary gatekeeping, and I'm not sure for what purpose or for who's intended benefit. The movement needs to evolve to better protect the rights of the people actually doing the work, because they are the ones who are benefiting the least by the narrow definition being pushed by the OSI. Maybe we need a new term if this is how "open-source" is seen in the broader community.

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#73

Post by satvikpendem »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #67
inhumantsar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that only stipulates that the third party has to make the code available if they've modified it. This is fine if you expect people to want to modify the backend, but it won't stop people who only care about cloning the service. Which is sort of the point, good software made available to as many people as possible as cheaply as possible, but it's not really protection against others who would monetize the software…

I am not an IP attorney but this is undecided territory: as I understand it your integrations may be considered modifications, and thus may be subject to the terms of the license, depending on the interpretation.

If Amazon can successfully do it such that other companies whose products they were hosting had to relicense to source available from AGPL, then, based on the strength of their lawyers, it is likely that those integrations are not actually needed to be released. And even if they were, it doesn't really matter, people don't use AWS for their source code.

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#74

Post by codegeek »

mort96 wrote: post #69

> AI-first I would've been interested in an actual replacement for Jira/Linear, but I'm uninterested in an unreliable tool where I have to deal with hallucinations. Stop trying to cram this crap into every single software project.

Unfortunately, you need "AI First" to have any chance of VC funding for the past 2 years or so. They are probably keeping this in mind.

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#75

Post by satvikpendem »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #44
satvikpendem wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL doesn't prevent anyone from taking your code wholesale and hosting the entire thing. They didn't make any changes so they don't have to contribute anything back per AGPL. OP can make any part that interacts with it, such as billing and infrastructure code, closed source as they are the copyright holder and thus do not have to abide by AGPL or any license themselves. If they make every contributor sign a CLA, the…

If you build something interacts over a network with an AGPL’d program, then you are hitting the distributing over a network clause in the license.

So what? Amazon is perfectly content distributing the source code, because they don't actually modify it, only host it. That was the main issue that caused many companies to relicense to source available.

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#76

Post by satvikpendem »

evantbyrne wrote: post #72
KolmogorovComp wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s not an open-source license because it’s not OSI compliant https://opensource.org/licenses . Open-source has a specific meaning that too many people don’t know or forgot.

This feels like splitting hairs and unnecessary gatekeeping, and I'm not sure for what purpose or for who's intended benefit. The movement needs to evolve to better protect the rights of the people actually doing the work, because they are the ones who are benefiting the least by the narrow definition being pushed by the OSI. Maybe we need a new term if this is how "open-source" is seen in the broader community.

The term is "source available," but I guess with that, companies can't use "open source" as a marketing term then pull the rug after they got enough contributions, like so many that converted to BSL and others now. By creating rights for those companies such that they cannot be competed with, you actually remove the rights of users, which is the whole reason the open source and free software movements got started in the first place. They are and always have been about the rights of users, not of corporations.

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#77

Post by mort96 »

codegeek wrote: post #74
mort96 wrote: post #69

> AI-first I would've been interested in an actual replacement for Jira/Linear, but I'm uninterested in an unreliable tool where I have to deal with hallucinations. Stop trying to cram this crap into every single software project.

Unfortunately, you need "AI First" to have any chance of VC funding for the past 2 years or so. They are probably keeping this in mind.

That may be, but you need to not have "AI" or "AI-first" in your description in order to be an interesting product/project.

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#78

Post by evantbyrne »

satvikpendem wrote: post #76
evantbyrne wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like splitting hairs and unnecessary gatekeeping, and I'm not sure for what purpose or for who's intended benefit. The movement needs to evolve to better protect the rights of the people actually doing the work, because they are the ones who are benefiting the least by the narrow definition being pushed by the OSI. Maybe we need a new term if this is how "open-source" is seen in the broader community.

The term is "source available," but I guess with that, companies can't use "open source" as a marketing term then pull the rug after they got enough contributions, like so many that converted to BSL and others now. By creating rights for those companies such that they cannot be competed with, you actually remove the rights of users, which is the whole reason the open source and free software movements got started in…

What are you talking about? I don't know where you live or what project you are referring to, but it's not possible to retroactively remove someone's rights in the American legal system by publishing a new license. If you committed code under a MIT license without signing anything else, you don't lose anything when later versions are published under BSL, AGPL, or whatever. The fact that the MIT license arguably allows willy nilly relicensing by anyone should be seen as a flaw with that license, not BSL. Also the context of this conversation is what license is appropriate for a new project. It makes less sense to apply a BSL to a MIT licensed project that has been around for a while than it does to start off with a BSL.

Re: Show HN: Tegon: Open-source alternative to Jira, Linear

#79

Post by satvikpendem »

evantbyrne wrote: post #78
satvikpendem wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term is "source available," but I guess with that, companies can't use "open source" as a marketing term then pull the rug after they got enough contributions, like so many that converted to BSL and others now. By creating rights for those companies such that they cannot be competed with, you actually remove the rights of users, which is the whole reason the open source and free software movements got started in…

What are you talking about? I don't know where you live or what project you are referring to, but it's not possible to retroactively remove someone's rights in the American legal system by publishing a new license. If you committed code under a MIT license without signing anything else, you don't lose anything when later versions are published under BSL, AGPL, or whatever. The fact that the MIT license arguably allow…

I'm not even sure how what you're saying relates to what I said; of course no license can be retroactively changed and I never said anything to the contrary. By rug pull, I mean companies like Sentry or MongoDB starting off as open source then changing their license such that they are no longer open source, making it a much more difficult legal minefield for whomever uses their product, even if they aren't competing with them, as they are now source available companies. As a copyright holder, any license can be changed for the future, whether it be MIT, AGPL, or BSL. With regards to a new project, sure, they can license it however they want but if it's not open source, they should expect to get way fewer contributions than if it were.
Post reply on HN