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

CodeCov is now Open Source

about.codecov.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#151

Post by mlinksva »

mhh__ wrote: post #7
stsewd wrote: post #4

Not really open source, they are releasing their code under the BSL (Business Source License https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/blob/main/LICENSE ). But still great, and they use Django :D It's also interesting that they will no longer offer a commercial self-hosted solution. > As a part of this shift, we are offering a new self-hosted repo that makes it easy to run Codecov in a minimal docker-compose based setup…

N.B. BSL already refers to boost

Yeah BUSL or better yet BUSL-1.1 is the right way to refer to the Business Source License https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html

BSL or better yet BSL-1.0 is indeed Boost https://spdx.org/licenses/BSL-1.0.html

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#152

Post by zeeg »

mlinksva wrote: post #151
mhh__ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

N.B. BSL already refers to boost

Yeah BUSL or better yet BUSL-1.1 is the right way to refer to the Business Source License https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html BSL or better yet BSL-1.0 is indeed Boost https://spdx.org/licenses/BSL-1.0.html

Noted! We’ve messed this up in the past and I have a vague recollection of this same confusion. Hasn’t helped that others (possibly also partly due to us) have made the same mistake. We’ll work to correct this usage.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#153

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

zeeg wrote: post #150
tedivm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at it from a high level, Sentry wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to promote GPL/AGPL open source development because it's harder for them to profit off of it, but they don't want others to profit off of their work which is why they're sticking with a "source available" license.

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 where you're arguing that BSL is Open Source but GPL isn't... on the bright side, there's no point in arguing after that; you're clearly in a different world than the rest of us.

> Clearly we hurt your feelings somewhere on the past, but let’s not go around spreading falsehoods.

Let's also not go around making unhelpful ad hominems.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#154

Post by cxr »

zeeg wrote: post #148
ezekg wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a distinction between FOSS and OSS. Nobody is trying to infringe on your FOSS rights. But some may argue the term OSS has changed to not strictly mean FOSS. The term "open source" at face value only implies "source available" until you read the license. Ask 1,000 developers and I'd bet real money the majority would say projects under BSL and other non-"OSI approved" licenses are "open source." Not FOS…

In my experience most people think of open source as free plus source available. The average user doesn’t care much beyond that, which is supported by people’s willingness to add just about any dep to their software without validating licenses. No one will ever agree on terminology, but for me personally BSL is in the same category as GPL in that it achieves a bunch of the core principles, has less consequence, but a…

> for me personally BSL is in the same category as GPL

Cool. So use the GPL, then.

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36973417>

> No one will ever agree on terminology

K. And "no one" will ever agree that evolution by natural selection is responsible for the origin of species. Dang. What a pickle.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#155

Post by zeeg »

zeeg wrote: post #150
tedivm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at it from a high level, Sentry wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to promote GPL/AGPL open source development because it's harder for them to profit off of it, but they don't want others to profit off of their work which is why they're sticking with a "source available" license.

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…

> Er, what? GPL is completely fine for corporate use; it doesn't even trigger until you distribute to third parties

A lot of us distribute software. It’s not an outlier, it’s the majority. It may have been a different concern 20 years ago, but software and adoption has changed dramatically.

> It really doesn't. And if you're at a point where you're arguing that BSL is Open Source but GPL isn't... on the bright side, there's no point in arguing after that; you're clearly in a different world than the rest of us.

I’m not. I’m saying that it’s odd to be able to justify GPL as open source yet be unwilling to consider something like BSL as part of the ecosystem. Both have serious restrictions, albeit different. Neither let you “do whatever you want” which some might write is true FOSS.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#157

Post by whit537 »

thinkmassive wrote: post #95
whit537 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three years here (four is the BSL default).

Here’s the exact line from your license file: Change Date:2023-06-29 2027-01-01 Seems like it should really be interpreted to mean the Apache license started applying on June 29, 2023.

(Addressed elsewhere in the comments, this is obviously a mistake.)

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#158

Post by pseudalopex »

zeeg wrote: post #150
tedivm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at it from a high level, Sentry wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to promote GPL/AGPL open source development because it's harder for them to profit off of it, but they don't want others to profit off of their work which is why they're sticking with a "source available" license.

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…

> I’m not sure why you’re 20 comments deep on HN

Why are you?

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#159

Post by Pannoniae »

tedivm wrote: post #138
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…

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...

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#160

Post by bentlegen »

mdaniel wrote: post #103
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is always fine until someone comes along and starts selling hosting of Open Source SaaS projects. I cannot talk for Zulip and I truly hope they will succeed with not relicensing or closing part of the software.

This strawman argument gets trotted out every time and every instance that I've heard thus far is exactly that. It's the "otherwise the terrorists win" of my profession Ordinarily I would have gladly used Sentry's community and my good experience with its hosting and customer service as rebuttals but now ...

At one point Sentry was packaged with GitLab and bundled as a capability/extension of the GitLab suite of products (see "Error Tracking"): https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/39701
Post reply on HN