4 ms·

This looks really great, thanks for making it open-source and for releasing https://fair.io https://fair.io as a new license model. One thing that you should k

This looks really great, thanks for making it open-source and for releasing https://fair.io https://fair.io as a new license model. One thing that you should know is that your 'appdash' trace links are publicly available. You can see a screenshot here https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfu2sbz2ctlxwsx/Screenshot%202015-11-24%2013.15.11.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfu2sbz2ctlxwsx/Screenshot%202015-...

Titanous 11y ago
It's not open source in the traditional sense of the term, though they have published the source code. The license is proprietary.
slimsag 11y ago
(dev here) thanks for the heads up! :) I've created an issue[1] so I can fix this soon; it's just a link to the trace served by Appdash[2] and the instance isn't actually public so it's not a security issue (just a broken link). Certainly shouldn't be visible to non-devs who can't access it, though. Really appreciate the feedback, let me know if you have more! :) [1] https://src.sourcegraph.com/sourcegraph/.tracker/35 https://src.sourcegraph.com/sourcegraph/.tracker/35 [2] https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/appdash https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/appdash
- Dangeranger 11y ago
  Yeah I noticed that the link directed you to a login page. If I notice anything else I'll send a follow up.
durin42 11y ago
So, a question that immediately arose for me out of reading that license: what's the definition of a user? If I wanted to use this to self-host my own projects, is everyone on the internet a user? Am I limited to 15 collaborators on my project unless I pony up? Is that 15 collaborators over all of time, or within some time interval?
- ultramancool 11y ago
  I really do not like this license, it prevents usage with other licensing models near completely. Say I want to integrate their code intelligence into gitlab community (MIT licensed), I'm shit out of luck, even if I were to create a relicensed version of gitlab under the Sourcegraph license, it seems as though it'd be unclear who gets what fees and who counts as a "user" in this case. Would it force me as a devleoper who just wants to make something cool to deal with licensing costs? Would I have to be a middleman between Sourcegraph and enterprise customers? Could I say no enterprise customers, too bad, I don't want to deal with it? What if I, as an individual, fork the project to add some breaking features that not all users may want? Who gets the money from those corporate licensors? Am I even allowed to do so? The fair.io site doesn't make it clear and based on what they do say, I'd be extremely hesitant to make anything more than casual use of software under this license. It seems to me, based on the information on fair.io that I can simply fork the project, offer enterprise licenses for $0.01, or heck, make a fork for my company which is identical to the original but has my logo on it and charge my company $0 for licensing... is there any prevention of this that I'm missing? IANAL but this legal portion here looks flimsy and lacks important definitions, especially with regards to protections from stuff like that.
  - durin42 11y ago
    I was excited by this project until I saw the license, and then I decided to not touch it at all until lawyers look at the license.
  - sqs 11y ago
    Sourcegraph CEO here. Fair Source is intended to allow companies to distribute both the product and source code, and still charge for the product. Fair Source is not an open-source license. Just as with GPL, there are restrictions around your usage of the code that are intended to produce longer-term benefits (in our case, making sure we can build the best product and have a sustainable business). We have had it reviewed thoroughly by multiple lawyers in several countries, and it was drafted by Heather Meeker, who is extremely well respected. I am not a lawyer myself, but the "hypothetical loophole" scenario you described would involve you making a derivative work of our code—kind of like photocopying Harry Potter and adding some doodles in the margins, and reselling that. That would not circumvent any license or copyright situation.

Titanous 11y ago

It's not open source in the traditional sense of the term, though they have published the source code. The license is proprietary.

slimsag 11y ago

(dev here) thanks for the heads up! :) I've created an issue[1] so I can fix this soon; it's just a link to the trace served by Appdash[2] and the instance isn't actually public so it's not a security issue (just a broken link). Certainly shouldn't be visible to non-devs who can't access it, though. Really appreciate the feedback, let me know if you have more! :) [1] https://src.sourcegraph.com/sourcegraph/.tracker/35 https://src.sourcegraph.com/sourcegraph/.tracker/35 [2] https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/appdash https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/appdash

Dangeranger 11y ago
Yeah I noticed that the link directed you to a login page. If I notice anything else I'll send a follow up.

durin42 11y ago

So, a question that immediately arose for me out of reading that license: what's the definition of a user? If I wanted to use this to self-host my own projects, is everyone on the internet a user? Am I limited to 15 collaborators on my project unless I pony up? Is that 15 collaborators over all of time, or within some time interval?

ultramancool 11y ago
I really do not like this license, it prevents usage with other licensing models near completely. Say I want to integrate their code intelligence into gitlab community (MIT licensed), I'm shit out of luck, even if I were to create a relicensed version of gitlab under the Sourcegraph license, it seems as though it'd be unclear who gets what fees and who counts as a "user" in this case. Would it force me as a devleoper who just wants to make something cool to deal with licensing costs? Would I have to be a middleman between Sourcegraph and enterprise customers? Could I say no enterprise customers, too bad, I don't want to deal with it? What if I, as an individual, fork the project to add some breaking features that not all users may want? Who gets the money from those corporate licensors? Am I even allowed to do so? The fair.io site doesn't make it clear and based on what they do say, I'd be extremely hesitant to make anything more than casual use of software under this license. It seems to me, based on the information on fair.io that I can simply fork the project, offer enterprise licenses for $0.01, or heck, make a fork for my company which is identical to the original but has my logo on it and charge my company $0 for licensing... is there any prevention of this that I'm missing? IANAL but this legal portion here looks flimsy and lacks important definitions, especially with regards to protections from stuff like that.
- durin42 11y ago
  I was excited by this project until I saw the license, and then I decided to not touch it at all until lawyers look at the license.
- sqs 11y ago
  Sourcegraph CEO here. Fair Source is intended to allow companies to distribute both the product and source code, and still charge for the product. Fair Source is not an open-source license. Just as with GPL, there are restrictions around your usage of the code that are intended to produce longer-term benefits (in our case, making sure we can build the best product and have a sustainable business). We have had it reviewed thoroughly by multiple lawyers in several countries, and it was drafted by Heather Meeker, who is extremely well respected. I am not a lawyer myself, but the "hypothetical loophole" scenario you described would involve you making a derivative work of our code—kind of like photocopying Harry Potter and adding some doodles in the margins, and reselling that. That would not circumvent any license or copyright situation.