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

Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

anytype.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 281 posts

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#141

Post by fuksman »

taink wrote: post #109
pronkin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are in open beta now. We have a network of nodes not one node.

You should update your docs because this is not what they say. I seem to understand you just started the open beta -- congratulations. You should still mention your product is in beta on your homepage (or at the very least, your download page). EDIT: How can I see which nodes are in the network? There's only one ID on https://networks.any.coop/ and I don't know what to do with it.

Thank you for the heads-up, we will review the relevance of all the docs.

Regarding the list of nodes: we don't show it in the interface now, but will add more network information in the coming releases with simplified self-hosting. For now, you can see the list of nodes in the code: https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-heart/blob/release/core/...

If you want to dive into the details, information about the underlying protocol and configuration formats can be found there: https://tech.anytype.io

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#142

Post by JSavageOne »

wallmountedtv wrote: post #71
pgeorgi wrote: post #28

Note, their idea[0] of "open source" doesn't match the popular Open Source Definition [1] [0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE... [1] https://opensource.org/osd/

When will VC companies stop conflating source available with open source? It's even worse than just being closed source as it's trying to pander to a group for money, and without any respect to the actual values of what they are saying.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that source code being publicly accessible is worse than nobody being able to access it? What a ridiculous statement.

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#143

Post by pronkin »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #132
pronkin wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's their claim, but it doesn't hold up much so far. are there any arguments? >There are many apps who can sync, most of them have it as an option, without a forced login and hidden sync. We don’t have any forced login. It’s just basic keychain that generated on your machine, that only can use, and can use off-line. It’s a way do deal with encryption. Where you see a forced login? >So I can't even access my data…

> We don’t have any forced login. Then how can I use the app without creating first an account and space which will sync my data without even asking? You talk about trust and offline-first, but the first thing you do is uploading data and don't even talk about it. > we have described our data format, Where? BTW Don't reinvent menus. I just now realized that File->Close does not actually close the app, like in any oth…

> Then how can I use the app without creating first an account and space which will sync my data without even asking? You talk about trust and offline-first, but the first thing you do is uploading data and don't even talk about it.

It's not an account you create in a classical way using a server. It's locally generated data wallet ( we need it for encryption and sync). We talk via on-boarding that your wallet will be synced, and that your data is encrypted only with the key generated on your machine. It's for people who don't want to mess with self-hosting. If you want you can make your build from GitHub, disconnect sync, or just self-host yours. This way our promise works.

> we have described our data format

we have a GitHub! here it is https://github.com/anyproto/any-block

> BTW Don't reinvent menus. I just now realized that File->Close does not actually close the app, like in any other app. And for whatever reason, there was no information about the App still running. Kinda sus..

good point!

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#144

Post by JSavageOne »

pgeorgi wrote: post #28

Note, their idea[0] of "open source" doesn't match the popular Open Source Definition [1] [0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE... [1] https://opensource.org/osd/

So what is the appropriate term then for "source code freely available, but cannot be used for commercial use?"

I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it.

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#145

Post by PurpleRamen »

jrm4 wrote: post #56

Everything about this smells like "we're going to say we're open-source and that you're always fully in control" and then you read the fine print and find out there's some way to rugpull or some other barrier that will screw the user. At this stage, having seen so many of these things, I'm comfortable disbelieving them outright WITHOUT reading further.

The project seems to come from the crypto-bubble. Bitcoin and DAO are mentioned here and there. So the smell either comes from them being a bit naive and having a poor socializing matching with HN.. or it's a new style of crypto-scam.

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#146

Post by e12e »

JSavageOne wrote: post #144
pgeorgi wrote: post #28

Note, their idea[0] of "open source" doesn't match the popular Open Source Definition [1] [0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE... [1] https://opensource.org/osd/

So what is the appropriate term then for "source code freely available, but cannot be used for commercial use?" I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it.

Source Available.

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#148

Post by Zambyte »

pronkin wrote: post #139
Zambyte wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not use the GPL?

Because we want to provide other organizations with the opportunity to offer paid sync services, we needed to incorporate the concept of a network into the license. We crafted the license with that consideration in mind

> Because we want to provide other organizations with the opportunity to offer paid sync services

Why do you think the GPL is not compatible with this?

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#149

Post by kykeonaut »

npteljes wrote: post #136
kykeonaut wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence why the "free" in "Free and Open Source Software" really matters. :)

Not really, someone could just use that misleadingly too, just as with "open source". "Open Source" already doesn't cover these special licenses, instead, the "source available" is used. Any also acknowledges this actually - the license they are using is called the "Any Source Available License 1.0".

After a bit of brushing up on my acronyms, one could indeed use FOSS or FLOSS to denote that a piece of software is either free (or libre) or just open source [0].

The term "open source" is not referring to software with a free license, but to software whose source code is available to the public irrespective of license [1].

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Re: Anytype – local-first, P2P Notion alternative

#150

Post by mbreese »

zoogeny wrote: post #123
pgeorgi wrote: post #28

Note, their idea[0] of "open source" doesn't match the popular Open Source Definition [1] [0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE... [1] https://opensource.org/osd/

A lot of the comments to this are angry and I can appreciate that. There is obviously some specific nuance to "open source" that individuals in this thread want to maintain and feel that the OSI has enshrined in stone as a definition that no one shall breach. However, I strongly support the kind of license (in principle) that this software is released under. Source code is available for anyone to inspect, modify for…

This isn’t bickering. These definitions have existed for literal decades. There are multiple models for making source code available, and people can choose what license they want. But this isn’t open source. This is source available, free (as in beer, kinda) license.

You don’t have to pay, and you can see the source code. But, in my quick reading, I don’t think you can make modifications, distribute modifications, distribute unmodified versions, and there is a restriction on how you use the software (non-commercial only).

This is the same type of license Microsoft gave certain large (TLA) customers for Windows, IIRC. I believe they called it “shared source,” as in they shared a copy of the source with you, but you couldn’t use the source for more than review. No one would claim that was open source.

There are differences between free, open, and available. This is only the later. No one cares about what license something is available through. Authors get to do whatever they want. People only care when you try to claim one thing, but it is really something else. In this case, the company is trying to use the term “open source” as a selling point of their software, when it isn’t. This license doesn’t even match the definitions they use on their own site!

I’m happy the authors want to make it possible to audit their software. That’s a laudable goal. If they want to restrict usage of the source code to non-commercial use, that’s fine and up to them. Just don’t call it “open source”.

Just because something is free doesn’t make it open. And just because something is open doesn’t make it free (as in freedom or beer). Similarly, just because something auditable and available, doesn’t make it free or open.

The fact that the authors don’t know the difference (or are potentially misrepresenting the difference) will only make the community mad - especially the part of the community that would care about seeing the source code in the first place. If they instead were marketing the project as “source available” for auditing or non-commercial use, this wouldn’t have been an issue.

Post reply on HN