71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are using “open source” as a generic descriptor, not as the unregistered trademark of the OSI.
Yes, and that is the problem. That "descriptor" is not correct. The correct descriptor is "source available".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t the “solution” for Sentry that deploying it is such a pain in the ass that no one bothers to really do this? I haven’t checked in years but that always seemed like the real competitive blocker?
Don't believe the salesmen, self hosting Sentry has been the most liberating feeling in a long while. Buy a cheap dedicated server with 64 gigs of RAM from Hetzner, run their install script and it's literally up and running. I'm processing volumes that would bankrupt me on their managed service without breaking a sweat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and that is the problem. That "descriptor" is not correct. The correct descriptor is "source available".
The descriptor is correct. The source is available to you, free of charge, and you can do anything with it as long as you extend the same rights to your users.
I am fine with licensing your code as you wish, but I will always oppose attempts to redefine the widely understood and established meaning of "open source" that has been in place for over 30 years. You don't get to change its definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The descriptor is correct. The source is available to you, free of charge, and you can do anything with it as long as you extend the same rights to your users.
Yes, I agree that "source available" is an accurate description. Unlike "Open Source" licenses, which have no restrictions, "O'saasy" does not allow you to do "anything" you want. Adding a clause like "but you can't compete with us" makes it incompatible with OSS licenses. I am fine with licensing your code as you wish, but I will always oppose attempts to redefine the widely understood and established meaning of "op…
I know I am tooting Sentry's own horn a bit here, and since I was involved it is close to my heart. We struggled at one point with how to build a large company on top of an open source project, and we never liked the idea of simply carving out parts of the codebase and marking them as closed source (open core). At the same time, there was always the latent risk that even if you put 95% of the energy into the product,…
The end of life problem can be solved by source code escrow, with a clause putting the code under an open source license and published in case of the demise of the owning cpmpany.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So people can argue it doesn’t work, but so far we only have evidence to the contrary and Sentry is quite successful So, RedHat has also been successful? GP says that some companies don't find FSL aggressive enough, despite it having worked nicely for Sentry. And that's similar to the point Adam makes: That Open Source (per OSI not FSF) is a development model not a business model. Companies that don't want/need to…
I'm not talking about RedHat, I'm talking about the perspective that "FSL / BUSL aren't effective enough". They solve the problem. O'saasy is just freeware at the end of the day, FSL creates more open source, and BUSL often has (though unfortunately the license doesnt require it). The idea that FSL ~= Closed Source is entirely wrong and misunderstands the value that an open distribution gives. We have 10s of thousand…
I don't think we're disagreeing at all. I quoted Adam to drive the point that tech shops that value collaboration will tend to prefer OSI-approved licenses. That doesn't seem to be the case for Sentry:
[Sentry is] single-source. That is, [the Company behind it] are the authors and maintainers of the software, and [does] not expect the community to provide us with contributions. We still allow it, and are thankful, but we consider it our duty to develop our software.
It does seem like Sentry wants control over distribution, but by the way of license? Adam proposes something similar (and I guess that's the reason he's okay with "Fair Source", like a few others too who want to unchain the idea and go beyond OSI / Open Source [0]):
[Sentry wants] to allow people to self-host our software.
A counter example: The Android Open Source Project is OSS, and is firmly gate-kept by Google via trademark and other collaborative arrangements like the Open Handset Alliance and Linaro. That said, this is the happy case. Sentry clearly had a different experience with bigger tech shops (GitLab?) trying to monetize its offering without contributing anything back, which (tbh) sounds super terrible.
To me, there seem to be pathways to both succeed & fail with OSI-approved licenses (probably you'd argue... one'd fail more than succeed), and these licenses on their own are neither the only condition nor a sufficient one for business build around them to stumble and falter. That said, I get your point that "Fair Source" gives "single-source" projects a fighting chance, like it did for Sentry. I'd also have thought that the OSI-approved AGPLv3 (your reservations about copyleft notwithstanding) is enough to keep big shops from leeching from other high-quality mostly single-source projects... but may be I was mistaken (given MongoDB / Elastic / Redis / CockroachDB didn't think so; even if, Elastic & Redis switched back to including OSI-approved license, specifically the AGPLv3).
[0] as indicated here (linked to from one of your blog posts): https://medium.com/@nayafia/i-hate-the-term-open-source-a65f... / https://archive.vn/K7CHs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I agree that "source available" is an accurate description. Unlike "Open Source" licenses, which have no restrictions, "O'saasy" does not allow you to do "anything" you want. Adding a clause like "but you can't compete with us" makes it incompatible with OSS licenses. I am fine with licensing your code as you wish, but I will always oppose attempts to redefine the widely understood and established meaning of "op…
The “established” meaning has in fact been deliberately created by megacarporations like Microsoft so they can exploit free labor by volunteers to make money without lifting a finger. Look at who is sponsoring the OSI.
Please don't embarrass yourself with your conspiracy theory nonsense. Besides that, Microsoft contributed to Open Source more than any other company.