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

111–120 of 133 posts

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

#111

Post by evantbyrne »

lmm wrote: post #109
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.

> This feels like splitting hairs and unnecessary gatekeeping, and I'm not sure for what purpose or for who's intended benefit. The line must be drawn. Open-source absolutely needs to have a firm definition, otherwise it will be whittled away to nothing. Microsoft already tried that with "shared source". If you think the difference between BSL and AGPL is just splitting hairs, then why not just use the AGPL?

There is less of a difference between BSL and MIT than between any GPL license, as I'm sure you are aware. If I'm giving away software including source in the open, for free, while allowing redistribution and modification, then I'm not sure how to convey that without offending patrons of the OSI and FSF. Not feeling like walking around on eggshells to give things away that's for certain.

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

#112

Post by lmm »

evantbyrne wrote: post #111
lmm wrote: post #109

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 line must be drawn. Open-source absolutely needs to have a firm definition, otherwise it will be whittled away to nothing. Microsoft already tried that with "shared source". If you think the difference between BSL and AGPL is just splitting hairs, then why not just use the AGPL?

There is less of a difference between BSL and MIT than between any GPL license, as I'm sure you are aware. If I'm giving away software including source in the open, for free, while allowing redistribution and modification, then I'm not sure how to convey that without offending patrons of the OSI and FSF. Not feeling like walking around on eggshells to give things away that's for certain.

> There is less of a difference between BSL and MIT than between any GPL license, as I'm sure you are aware.

Nonsense. There is an enormous difference between the MIT license, which grants you permission to use and sublicense something without any restrictions, and the BSL, which does not.

> If I'm giving away software including source in the open, for free, while allowing redistribution and modification, then I'm not sure how to convey that without offending patrons of the OSI and FSF.

If you put limitations on how that software is used, then no, you're not giving it away. That part is something the OSI and FSF have been very clear about for decades - see e.g. the FSF's "four freedoms", which are about as clear and simple as you can get.

Even silly "camel's nose" limitations count, and have to count, otherwise there is no place to draw the line; see the OSI and FSF's comments on the HESSLA or the (pre-2021) JSLint license. Again this is something they've been clear about for decades.

> Not feeling like walking around on eggshells to give things away that's for certain.

If you want to give things away for free then do so. If you want to pull a Columbia Record Club "it's free, no wait you have to pay us" scam then of course people aren't going to support that.

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

#113

Post by itomato »

Aeolun wrote: post #104
threecheese wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are suggesting OP do this to demonstrate that their assertion is correct - that AI generated issue titles are objectively better - this is a Good Idea. I have to guess /hope that they did this already; who would make a time investment like this without first proving that the product has value? Anyway I certainly wouldn’t even pilot it without some proof.

That’s a fun idea. I’ll have to see if I can run it on our Jira and Confluence instances to get better (or even minimal) ticket descriptions from the requirements.

You absolutely can if you add the context from correlations to Product and CX, brand tone and other bits of RAG.

You can study it all by graphing text extracts with NetworkX before you pay for an off-the-shelf LLM to provide a false sense of confidence.

The exercise will help you build the prompt regardless of what tech you use.

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

#114

Post by evantbyrne »

lmm wrote: post #112
evantbyrne wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is less of a difference between BSL and MIT than between any GPL license, as I'm sure you are aware. If I'm giving away software including source in the open, for free, while allowing redistribution and modification, then I'm not sure how to convey that without offending patrons of the OSI and FSF. Not feeling like walking around on eggshells to give things away that's for certain.

> There is less of a difference between BSL and MIT than between any GPL license, as I'm sure you are aware. Nonsense. There is an enormous difference between the MIT license, which grants you permission to use and sublicense something without any restrictions, and the BSL, which does not. > If I'm giving away software including source in the open, for free, while allowing redistribution and modification, then I'm no…

Brother, let's agree to disagree. I'm not involved in any of these licensing dramas as I don't have any feelings of entitlement to free labor. People can give away as little or as much as they please.

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

#115

Post by dizhn »

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.”

Doesn't the AGPL allow all uses including commercial? How would this work?

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

#116

Post by lmm »

evantbyrne wrote: post #114
lmm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is less of a difference between BSL and MIT than between any GPL license, as I'm sure you are aware. Nonsense. There is an enormous difference between the MIT license, which grants you permission to use and sublicense something without any restrictions, and the BSL, which does not. > If I'm giving away software including source in the open, for free, while allowing redistribution and modification, then I'm no…

Brother, let's agree to disagree. I'm not involved in any of these licensing dramas as I don't have any feelings of entitlement to free labor. People can give away as little or as much as they please.

There's no "agree to disagree" when you're doing something that (whether you intend it that way or not) will end up scamming people. Don't tell people your code is open source when it's not open source. Don't tell people your code is free when it's not free. It's not entitlement to expect people to keep their word, even if you didn't pay them.

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

#117

Post by malcolmgreaves »

dizhn wrote: post #115
malcolmgreaves wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

Doesn't the AGPL allow all uses including commercial? How would this work?

You can make a license with any terms you want. You can embed the exact text of the AGPL into another license. And that license can have an if-else branch where the predicate is “are you making money with this or not?”

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

#118

Post by malcolmgreaves »

Daviey wrote: post #51
malcolmgreaves wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

Please define "commercial use", because it means different things to different people. Also, lots of organisations have a blanket ban on AGPL, so offering it under an alternative commercial license is a great approach to enable them, but explicitly blocking it for "commercial use" makes it no longer free software, which would be a shame.

Commercial use is making money with the software.

You could certainly iterate on the terms to strike the balance you want. You could make the source available to commercial clients as well. Each client can have a licensed tailored to their exact needs at a price that works for the people that make this software.

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

#119

Post by Daviey »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #118
Daviey wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please define "commercial use", because it means different things to different people. Also, lots of organisations have a blanket ban on AGPL, so offering it under an alternative commercial license is a great approach to enable them, but explicitly blocking it for "commercial use" makes it no longer free software, which would be a shame.

Commercial use is making money with the software. You could certainly iterate on the terms to strike the balance you want. You could make the source available to commercial clients as well. Each client can have a licensed tailored to their exact needs at a price that works for the people that make this software.

It's much more nuanced than that... Sure, we can agree that if I host and charge users to use the service it is commercial usage... but:

  - If my limited company use it to manage internal development, but we aren't yet profitable (making money), is it commercial use?
  - If a company uses it to manage internal development, but it isn't the product itself, is it commercial use?
  - If I as an individual use it to manage a non-commercial side development project, and when it is then finished, I decide it is worth value and I sell it, does it become commercial usage, and my previous usage turns out to be non-compliant?
  - Is a charity using it to manage an internal development project "making money"?
  - If I as an individual provide a professional service to deploy this to "non-commercial" users, is this compliant by the license?
You really can drive a truck through the definition of "commercial use", it is nearly as bad as the original JSON license, which stated "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." - which is helluva subjective.

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

#120

Post by dizhn »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #117
dizhn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the AGPL allow all uses including commercial? How would this work?

You can make a license with any terms you want. You can embed the exact text of the AGPL into another license. And that license can have an if-else branch where the predicate is “are you making money with this or not?”

Yes of course but you can't call it the AGPL.
Post reply on HN