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

O'saasy License Agreement

osaasy.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: O'saasy License Agreement

#41

Post by tzahifadida »

Sander_Marechal wrote: post #8
tzahifadida wrote: post #4

I think that open source licenses for complete software (such as SaaS components) for commercial entities have a one major purpose: A marketing tactic. If I am open, it is easy to discuss it everywhere without paying for it. I think that if you are short on cash, open source is the way to go to get adoption faster. If you have endless money, then there is really no reason to open source it (except edge cases, like sh…

> Even though it may seem harsh to apache 2.0 the code, no one will steal it since you are maintaing it But that's evidently not true. Amazon has co-opted plenty of open source projects and put the squeeze on the original maintainer's SaaS offering.

Look at the caveat. If you cannot control the nerrative, you are done. Code is nothing in 2025, when a few 100$ can recreate a code base. AWS could have just recreated the code if they wanted, they just didn't have to. And, with their money, they could have bought redis labs if it was too difficult. I think people are looking at it the wrong way. The license wasn't the thing holding them back, they have the cash.

Re: O'saasy License Agreement

#42

Post by [deleted] »

homebrewer wrote: post #34
mechsy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need less scale/features go for glitchtip. If you’re not going for k8s, the self-hosted docker-compose version of sentry works fine including proper releases and support by the sentry team etc. Just experimental newly introduced features can be a bit wonky. They are doing much more than just throwing code over the fence. Also phone home telemetry is optional and there’s a switch for just errors mode. IMHO this…

This may very well be caused by my incompetence, but Sentry's docker-compose setup has never survived for more than a few months under my control. Something always destroys itself without an obvious reason sooner or later, and either refuses to start, or starts and doesn't really work. I tried updating it regularly, tried never updating it, getting the same treatment either way.

[deleted]

Re: O'saasy License Agreement

#43

Post by tzahifadida »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #35
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes obviously big tech knows how to profit from open source they (AWS) profitted so hard from redis and elasticsearch that they had to literally change their licenses similar to O'sassy's and even then people forked redis to create valkey and AWS engineers started working on it Both redis and elasticsearch got so much backlash because "not open source" when in reality, they were trying to make ends meet but also sinc…

> In the end, both of these had to revert switching to AGPL licenses. AGPL seems like the most battle tested solution here, though. You'd need a CLA from day 1, but if you have that then you can sell commercial licenses to people who won't meet the criteria for the real license. So I think it's important to differentiate between open source and free software, here.

I believe AGPL3 with CLA is the worst in 2025. Code can be recreated fast in 2025 especially with genAI getting better and better. The problem you'll have is the ownership of the code from day one. Today, people have concerns signing a CLA, so I am not sure redis is repeatable in that regard (though we have n8n). With Apache 2.0, if you are redis, you could have closed source the code in a few months and bury the competition. Why? because you need upgrades, you need CVE fixes, features, documentation, HA, etc... If you don't have a CLA you cannot close source AGPL3.0.

Of course I am taking the stance of the company not the users here :) The table have turned, I believe in 2025 the users should insist on using AGPL3 without signing CLA. But again, with enough cash, the code can be recreated with genAI, it is just a matter of resources.

Re: O'saasy License Agreement

#44

Post by chrysoprace »

mythz wrote: post #21

Given oligopoly cloud corps are the biggest exploiters of OSS (to everyone elses detriment), I'd prefer an OSS license that was simply OSS for everyone under < $1B ARR.

What are they exploiting? Are they violating the terms of the license? The point of OSS is that there aren't arbitrary restrictions to its use; you can do what you like with it and the open source maintainer has absolutely zero obligations to continue supporting the software, or implement any of your requests.

Re: O'saasy License Agreement

#46

Post by mythz »

pointlessone wrote: post #45
mythz wrote: post #21

Given oligopoly cloud corps are the biggest exploiters of OSS (to everyone elses detriment), I'd prefer an OSS license that was simply OSS for everyone under < $1B ARR.

So basically Big Time Public License. https://bigtimelicense.com/versions/2.0.2

Too complicated, should be simple like O'sassy, i.e. modified MIT with a clause where it doesn't extend to oligopoly cloud corps.

Re: O'saasy License Agreement

#47

Post by nlitened »

sneak wrote: post #5

People want to call their software open source, because it attracts customers. They don’t believe in software freedoms or open source, otherwise they’d never try or want to restrict Freedom 0. If your SaaS can’t compete on the service part, the software part ain’t gonna make or break you.

> If your SaaS can’t compete on the service part, the software part ain’t gonna make or break you.

Oh, your bootstrapped team can’t simultaneously develop from scratch and support the new open source software project AND outcompete a multi-billion dollar business who decided to offer your service as a below-cost addon to their offering used by millions of people on day one? Tough luck, greedy bastard, you should have stayed in your cubicle.

Re: O'saasy License Agreement

#48

Post by mechsy »

bberenberg wrote: post #37
mechsy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need less scale/features go for glitchtip. If you’re not going for k8s, the self-hosted docker-compose version of sentry works fine including proper releases and support by the sentry team etc. Just experimental newly introduced features can be a bit wonky. They are doing much more than just throwing code over the fence. Also phone home telemetry is optional and there’s a switch for just errors mode. IMHO this…

I did not intend to be critical of their work. They're doing OSS as best as they can and good for them. I am just saying that it's a different beast if Sentry is OSS vs a much simpler to operate OSS product. Licensing matters less when the operational cost acts as an inhibitor to adoption of your OSS offering.

True, opportunity cost is a factor, sorry if my reply sounded a bit brash. IMHO they are one of the few orgs who got this model right compared to lots of others who went the open core or support/consulting contract required OSS route.

Re: O'saasy License Agreement

#49

Post by duskdozer »

imtringued wrote: post #40
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes obviously big tech knows how to profit from open source they (AWS) profitted so hard from redis and elasticsearch that they had to literally change their licenses similar to O'sassy's and even then people forked redis to create valkey and AWS engineers started working on it Both redis and elasticsearch got so much backlash because "not open source" when in reality, they were trying to make ends meet but also sinc…

I personally find it questionable when people argue that the GPL/AGPL is less free because of the code sharing requirement. On the Rust subreddit you can see people make arguments that can essentially be paraphrased as "Get a real job". Somehow the people selling primary energy, food and raw materials are allowed to make money, the hardware manufacturers to run the code on are allowed to make money, cloud providers t…

I don't think it's strange at all - the "pure freedom" licenses intentionally don't have safeguards against exploitation of the system, which attracts those who want to take but not give back, which lines up well with proprietary software.
Post reply on HN