5 ms·

I may be misreading this, so please correct me. It seems as if this project has gone from open source to a closed source service ? [ https://github.com/replit/

I may be misreading this, so please correct me. It seems as if this project has gone from open source to a closed source service ? [ https://github.com/replit/jsrepl https://github.com/replit/jsrepl ] Are Facebook, Google, and all the other name brands you are using to promote your product using your proprietary service, or the older open source stuff? If you have gone closed source, you should only be using names that are using the proprietary product. It seems like putting "Open Source" on your front page in a big headline is a bit misleading if you are now a proprietary service. Labeling "Open Source" as a key feature seems disingenuous if you used to be open source but are no longer. If the case now is just that you use open source software, I don't think "Open Source" as headline is appropriate, as that is true of almost any company. The implication with listing "Open Source" as a headline is that your product is open source.

amasad 9y ago
Oh, I could see how this could be misleading. So the open-source tech you linked to is outdated -- we moved everything from the client-side to our own infra (because we wanted to do things like open a port). We intend to open source the backend infra too but it takes time for the protocol to stabilize. The "open-source" section on the homepage is intended to show that some open-source projects (for example Jest https://facebook.github.io/jest/ https://facebook.github.io/jest/ were repl.it is embedded on the homepage) use us as a playground, for bug reports etc. As for the logos they are either users or customers of the the Classroom product: https://repl.it/classroom https://repl.it/classroom Google, for example, uses the Classroom product to spread programming education. I think they have a program where they send teachers to schools to teach computer science. And there teachers wanted to use Repl.it etc.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  Just to be clear, Google using the Classroom product doesn't implicitly grant you permission to use their logo on your marketing materials. Did you obtain permission from the listed entities to use their logos?
  - amasad 9y ago
    I probably did, it's been a year though so I'm not entirely sure. For what it's worth this really is not needed and I actually hate the "look at all the logos" sections on websites so I just pushed a fix to remove it.
    - purple-again 9y ago
      It’s hard to make a man happy without making another one sad. I hate that it’s true, but look at all the logos you recognize using this product is the only way I can ever get my completely non tech literate boss to sign off on any new tech. :(
      - onenite 9y ago
        Maybe you can find a way to demonstrate its usefulness without its endorsements :)
      - notroot 9y ago
        Probably a super unpopular opinion here on hn but your boss `aint completely wrong. It's not a bad strategy when considering starting a business relationship with someone or something you don't know much about.
  - notroot 9y ago
    Agreed. I expressed some concerns about the now dead "trusted by" section as well https://twitter.com/stephenrigsby/status/973640170648956929 https://twitter.com/stephenrigsby/status/973640170648956929 . Also why is your comment kinda-greyed out?
    - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
      It was downvotes heavily (5 downvotes). "Move fast and break things, including business ethics and trademark laws" must be the prevailing thought among the HN readership
- mimming 9y ago
  The teacher you're thinking of from last year is me :) Thanks a lot for the great classroom product, and your support. It made my work a lot easier.
  - amasad 9y ago
    Oh awesome, thanks! Glad we could help.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ztratar 9y ago
I don't see this as an issue, personally. Part of their product is open-source, and part of it isn't. In addition, their product can be used to help open-source projects with documentation, code running, etc. When I read "Open Source" near the bottom, that's what I read (the we help you with your open source projects). Also, any company is allowed to use names as long as they have an agreement with the company in place. Whether or not those companies use 1 of the company's products or all of them doesn't matter much. You see this a lot on Enterprise-oriented websites. Not all customers who leave case studies will use all the products.
- EgoIncarnate 9y ago
  "Part of their product is open-source" As I understand it, this is no longer the case (as compared to say an open core company). They had some open source software. They abandoned it. They hope to open source their tech in the future, but currently they are closed source proprietary tech on top of the usual Linux, node, etc infrastructure. They may be used by, or useful for open source projects, but currently they are not what most people would consider an open source company. I think that requires at least an open core, which to my understanding is not currently available.
wanghq 9y ago
Same feeling, thought it's open sourced.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

amasad 9y ago

Oh, I could see how this could be misleading. So the open-source tech you linked to is outdated -- we moved everything from the client-side to our own infra (because we wanted to do things like open a port). We intend to open source the backend infra too but it takes time for the protocol to stabilize. The "open-source" section on the homepage is intended to show that some open-source projects (for example Jest https://facebook.github.io/jest/ https://facebook.github.io/jest/ were repl.it is embedded on the homepage) use us as a playground, for bug reports etc. As for the logos they are either users or customers of the the Classroom product: https://repl.it/classroom https://repl.it/classroom Google, for example, uses the Classroom product to spread programming education. I think they have a program where they send teachers to schools to teach computer science. And there teachers wanted to use Repl.it etc.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
Just to be clear, Google using the Classroom product doesn't implicitly grant you permission to use their logo on your marketing materials. Did you obtain permission from the listed entities to use their logos?
- amasad 9y ago
  I probably did, it's been a year though so I'm not entirely sure. For what it's worth this really is not needed and I actually hate the "look at all the logos" sections on websites so I just pushed a fix to remove it.
  - purple-again 9y ago
    It’s hard to make a man happy without making another one sad. I hate that it’s true, but look at all the logos you recognize using this product is the only way I can ever get my completely non tech literate boss to sign off on any new tech. :(
    - onenite 9y ago
      Maybe you can find a way to demonstrate its usefulness without its endorsements :)
    - notroot 9y ago
      Probably a super unpopular opinion here on hn but your boss `aint completely wrong. It's not a bad strategy when considering starting a business relationship with someone or something you don't know much about.
- notroot 9y ago
  Agreed. I expressed some concerns about the now dead "trusted by" section as well https://twitter.com/stephenrigsby/status/973640170648956929 https://twitter.com/stephenrigsby/status/973640170648956929 . Also why is your comment kinda-greyed out?
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    It was downvotes heavily (5 downvotes). "Move fast and break things, including business ethics and trademark laws" must be the prevailing thought among the HN readership
mimming 9y ago
The teacher you're thinking of from last year is me :) Thanks a lot for the great classroom product, and your support. It made my work a lot easier.
- amasad 9y ago
  Oh awesome, thanks! Glad we could help.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

ztratar 9y ago

I don't see this as an issue, personally. Part of their product is open-source, and part of it isn't. In addition, their product can be used to help open-source projects with documentation, code running, etc. When I read "Open Source" near the bottom, that's what I read (the we help you with your open source projects). Also, any company is allowed to use names as long as they have an agreement with the company in place. Whether or not those companies use 1 of the company's products or all of them doesn't matter much. You see this a lot on Enterprise-oriented websites. Not all customers who leave case studies will use all the products.

EgoIncarnate 9y ago
"Part of their product is open-source" As I understand it, this is no longer the case (as compared to say an open core company). They had some open source software. They abandoned it. They hope to open source their tech in the future, but currently they are closed source proprietary tech on top of the usual Linux, node, etc infrastructure. They may be used by, or useful for open source projects, but currently they are not what most people would consider an open source company. I think that requires at least an open core, which to my understanding is not currently available.

wanghq 9y ago

Same feeling, thought it's open sourced.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]