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

161–170 of 179 posts

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#161

Post by [deleted] »

tedivm wrote: post #129
whit537 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your end goal is to exclude commercial reuse from the open source definition This is fairly accurate, though there are a range of possible outcomes we would be satisfied with. > my theory about embrace/extend/extinguish seems to be as accurate as I thought. This is confused. Embrace/extend/extinguish means to initially participate in an open standard and then extend the standard in such a way that the non-extended…

Open Source has always meant without limitations on use. You want to extend the standard to add a limitation on use, which would in turn radically change the definition of open source (to the point where you'd extinguish the current definition). Rather than simply accept that open source doesn't work for your business, at least for your core product, you want to change the definition of open source to something that…

[deleted]

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#163

Post by Pannoniae »

closewith wrote: post #133
whit537 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good catch, thanks! Fixing in https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/pull/6 .

I'm not sure you can undo this with a pull request.

Yes you can. If someone claimed "I can use it because they accidentally published the wrong license and swiftly corrected it", that wouldn't hold in court.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#164

Post by mdaniel »

bentlegen wrote: post #160
mdaniel wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are misinformed; they implemented a Sentry-compatible endpoint if the Project enabled it: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/v15.0.0-ee/lib/a...

I feel perhaps you meant to link to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/329596 which describes their intention to accept Sentry formatted JSON payloads and store them in their own database. Searching for "no need" in that issue will highlight the number of times they were drawing a distinction between the effort required to run GitLab and the effort to run the 15 containers of Sentry self-hosted

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#165

Post by closewith »

Pannoniae wrote: post #163
closewith wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you can undo this with a pull request.

Yes you can. If someone claimed "I can use it because they accidentally published the wrong license and swiftly corrected it", that wouldn't hold in court.

Would you have any precedent for that? I think in most of the world, that would hold in court.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#166

Post by ssddanbrown »

zeeg wrote: post #120

We have updated the language on our blog post to the more commonly accepted “open-source” terminology. I’d encourage everyone who cares about OSS to participate and consider the changes happening in the broader technology sector. Sustainability is more important now than ever in the ecosystem, and we need to evolve our thinking and tolerance. We need to look deeply at the goals of open source and how we can continue…

> I’d encourage everyone who cares about OSS to participate and consider the changes happening in the broader technology sector. [...] We need to look deeply at the goals of open source and how we can continue to achieve them, and that isn’t going to be arguing about what once was.

This isn't a change to achieve open source goals, this is redefining the goals of open source to suit your business interests. You want to take the positive marketing of open source and use it without taking the same risks, by affording the fundamental open rights, which other actual open source projects take. It's not that folks don't respect your right to protect your business interests via the license, but you simple don't have to use the open source term to do that, attempting to redefine what folks love in the process.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#167

Post by ssddanbrown »

tedivm wrote: post #76
azdle wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is saying there's anything wrong with releasing your code under the BSL. What's wrong is that you're lying and claiming you're open sourcing your code.

At this point it's hard not to think that they're purposefully ignoring this. It doesn't matter how many times I say that I don't care about their license, just their messaging, and yet we've got at least three employees from Sentry completely ignoring that and acting as if we don't think they have a right to license their own software. It's a straw man that lets them ignore the actual issue people have.

They've been like this before with Sentry, when I've raised their sketchy use of open source. I have some example queries/responses in this issue:

https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases/i...

The repo readme has other examples of sketchy cases of open source and licensing usage. This aspect (of why not just use a different term) often gets ignored. Sometimes folks say they're using it "to prevent confusion to users since they would have heard about open source" which is always an ironic self-involved viewpoint to see.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#168

Post by zeeg »

After reviewing the feedback (some of it from yall here), we recognize the challenges with using the term Open Source. We've posted a statement about this mistake and are working on improving things going forward:

https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/

For the folks who provided constructive criticism, we thank you.

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#169

Post by thayne »

I think we need a new term for licenses like these that are not quite open source. Saying it is open source is deceptive and erodes the meaning of open source, but they are also more open/free than just "source available" where the source code is available but you have no rights to do anything with it (although I've seen cases where even that is advertised as "open source").

Re: CodeCov is now Open Source

#170

Post by whit537 »

zeeg wrote: post #152
mlinksva wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FYI we have a follow-up at https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/.

> Yesterday we announced that Codecov is now “Open Source”, and we messed up in two ways:

> - We wrongly used the term Open Source; while unintentional, we should have known better

> - We let our emotions get the best of trying to explain our position, rather than stepping back and addressing the problem

> I want to talk about both of these, how we made the mistake, why it’s important to us, and what we plan to do about this to improve the conversation in the future.

HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36990036

Post reply on HN