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

Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#41

Post by ensignavenger »

japhyr wrote: post #22
ensignavenger wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, Sentry doesn't owe new open source code to anyone. Deciding to make new releases closed is acceptable. However, they have repeatedly made statements that they are committed to open source- some only months before this announcement. The 11 year old decision argument doesn't hold true. They have a right to change their mind. But they shouldn't be lying to their customers and the community now that their mind…

What label would you like them to use? What is the accepted name for a middle ground license now? Should they be advertising themselves as a "business source" company rather than an "open source" company? I don't ask this antagonistically, it's an honest question. I don't think they've shifted so much that they're just a standard company trying to make money off of proprietary software at this point. "You can host yo…

Shared Source was a term used in the past for proprietary licenses that shared the source. You suggest Business Source, and I would be fine with them using that term- as far as I know it isn't already taken.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#42

Post by kemitchell »

seanwilson wrote: post #39
kemitchell wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lead a project to develop a strong-copyleft license that makes development tools "free for open source": https://paritylicense.com The idea was that developers like you could make your tools available under Parity and charge folks who want to use their code to develop closed, rather than open, software. However, several projects and companies have also used the license simply to make sure their work stays open, wit…

I like the idea. How would it stop someone releasing a free version of a paid development tool though? It relies on people downloading the free tool to be honest enough not to use it on commercial projects?

No license can guarantee compliance with its own rules. That's true of all copyleft licenses, including GPL, EPL, and MPL.

Whether and how to enforce the license is up to the developer.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#43

Post by ensignavenger »

danenania wrote: post #28

I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free". This definition and the accompanying zealotry mainly serves big tech and the cloud providers. Everyone else would be better off if we as an industry also make room for software that is Open (in the sense that the code is freely available), but not Free (you must pay or obtain permission to run it yourself, re-di…

There is plenty of room for what you describe. You just shouldn't call it Open Source, because Open Source has a well-established definition already. You could call it Shared Source, or Source Available, or some one suggested Business Source. Whatever you want to call it (that isn't already taken), but don't lie in your marketing efforts by calling it open source.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#44

Post by kerkeslager »

danenania wrote: post #28

I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free". This definition and the accompanying zealotry mainly serves big tech and the cloud providers. Everyone else would be better off if we as an industry also make room for software that is Open (in the sense that the code is freely available), but not Free (you must pay or obtain permission to run it yourself, re-di…

> I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free".

I don't think we've done that. On the contrary, Stallman and many other free software advocates specifically distinguish between open source software and free software.

To add to the confusion, I think you're talking about free as in beer (gratis) rather than free as in freedom (libre). The latter is what most free software advocates are talking about.

I would argue that all of the problems you mention are caused by open source software that is not free (libre) even if it is free (gratis).

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#45

Post by [deleted] »

ensignavenger wrote: post #43
danenania wrote: post #28

I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free". This definition and the accompanying zealotry mainly serves big tech and the cloud providers. Everyone else would be better off if we as an industry also make room for software that is Open (in the sense that the code is freely available), but not Free (you must pay or obtain permission to run it yourself, re-di…

There is plenty of room for what you describe. You just shouldn't call it Open Source, because Open Source has a well-established definition already. You could call it Shared Source, or Source Available, or some one suggested Business Source. Whatever you want to call it (that isn't already taken), but don't lie in your marketing efforts by calling it open source.

[deleted]

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#46

Post by danenania »

kerkeslager wrote: post #44
danenania wrote: post #28

I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free". This definition and the accompanying zealotry mainly serves big tech and the cloud providers. Everyone else would be better off if we as an industry also make room for software that is Open (in the sense that the code is freely available), but not Free (you must pay or obtain permission to run it yourself, re-di…

> I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free". I don't think we've done that. On the contrary, Stallman and many other free software advocates specifically distinguish between open source software and free software. To add to the confusion, I think you're talking about free as in beer (gratis) rather than free as in freedom (libre). The latter is what most…

While this may be technically true, in practice these two types of "freedom" are almost always conflated. Anyone who posts something that is "libre" but not "gratis" will be met with lots of "why isn't it FOSS?" and "here's a FOSS alternative" comments. This is the (imo) self-defeating attitude I'm referring to.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#47

Post by blackorzar »

ahnick wrote: post #15
teddyh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any modifications to that code would need to be released again publicly. Technically, that is incompatible with the AGPL (and the GPL, for that matter). Private modifications without distribution are permitted by the GPL/AGPL, and if you don’t allow them, you are violating the GPL/AGPL license by adding this additional restriction. Of course, this might not be a problem, for two reasons: Firstly, you might be the s…

> Technically, that is incompatible with the AGPL (and the GPL, for that matter). Private modifications without distribution are permitted, and if you don’t allow them, you are violating the license. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant you make a modification AND offer a competing SaaS service. At that point under the AGPL that is considered distribution and would need to be open sourced. > Sure, but you wi…

Instead of CLA you may consider on requiring the contributions to be dual licensed MIT + AGPL. MIT allows you to use the code in your SAAS version. Your code, the constributions and the entire repo can be kept AGPL only (because MIT doesn't impose a condition on you to release the entire code as MIT).

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#48

Post by nicpottier »

ensignavenger wrote: post #20
japhyr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been aware of Sentry for years, but I've never used it and haven't followed the company closely. Reading Armin's post, and the official Sentry announcement [0], this strikes me as pretty reasonable. Sentry is about 11 years old. The industry has changed a lot in 11 years. There are people and companies around now that can build direct competitors more quickly than they could 11 years ago. The question raised i…

As I said, Sentry doesn't owe new open source code to anyone. Deciding to make new releases closed is acceptable. However, they have repeatedly made statements that they are committed to open source- some only months before this announcement. The 11 year old decision argument doesn't hold true. They have a right to change their mind. But they shouldn't be lying to their customers and the community now that their mind…

I think you are wording that a bit strongly. They are still sharing the source just saying you can't load it up on a server and start selling that service. (you can load it internally for your own use though)

Yes, Open Source has had a very specific meaning historically and maybe we need a new term but this still feels like they are following the spirit to me.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#49

Post by capableweb »

seanwilson wrote: post #24

I work on a paid Chrome extension that tests if your website follows SEO, speed and security best practices: https://www.checkbot.io/ I considered making it open source but couldn't see a way I could monetise it if I tried to charge for it mainly because someone could just upload a free version to the Chrome Web Store. Open sourcing a project also opens you up to taking on a lot more responsibilities as well (e.g. re…

> Open sourcing a project also opens you up to taking on a lot more responsibilities as well (e.g. reviewing pull requests, on-boarding new developers, maintaining code standards) and you risk losing control of your own project if you're not careful

I agree with the rest of what you said, but not this quoted parts.

Open sourcing your project has nothing to do with pull requests (you don't have to accept outside changes), onboarding new developers (you don't have to provide support) or maintain code standards. You get to do exactly whatever you want, whatever that means.

Risk losing control of your own project? How would that even happen? Unless you put someone in charge of your project, and they run away with the keys (sort of), I don't see how someone can "steal" your project.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#50

Post by nicpottier »

We are in a similar position and probably survive mostly through luck despite having vendors that sell our Open Source SaaS without contributing anything meaningful back.

In our particular case I don't think the BSL would work for us, but I definitely understand and support Sentry going this route. FWIW, we have been using Sentry for almost a decade and while we started off hosting our own server we quickly saw the advantage in paying for it instead (and we were happy to do so).

It's a tough thing to balance for sure, they have been one of the players we watch to see how Open Source SaaS can work and I wish them luck.

Post reply on HN