4 ms·

Yes you are correct. Wrote an extra section about it here in the docs: https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=license https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=license Great to hear!

EvanAnderson 7y ago
I think it's disingenuous of you to call it "Open Source" and I think the distinction matters to more people than you think it does.
- swsieber 7y ago
  I think "open source (but not really, there's a small restriction)" sums it up better than "source available", so I can understand framing it that way. OTOH, this is likely to never make it into distro repos anywhere. I also wonder if the author is driving to make a business out of it. So I'd make three points: 1) It does affect distribution 2) It otherwise doesn't materially affect how I would use it 3) It seems a little like asking for contributions to a proprietary project.
  - d4mi3n 7y ago
    Source Available is pretty sweet if you have a paid product you'd like to do detailed audits on. Especially in regulated environments (finance, medicine, etc). Many enterprises prefer a paid service, as such contracts usually come with somebody assuming liability for data on the system and being around to resolve problems you'd otherwise need to distract an in-house team with.
    - swsieber 7y ago
      I agree. My point is more of "source available" undersells the freedoms it does give you, while "open source" just barely over-represents them, so I can understand framing it as "basically open source".
- zaat 7y ago
  > Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted, although the proponents of the term say the conditions in the Open Source Definition must be fulfilled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_%22free%22_versus_%22free_and_open%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_...
  - EvanAnderson 7y ago
    I fall into the "...conditions in the Open Source Definition..." camp. I think many "source available" projects ride on the coattails of the goodwill associated with the term "Open Source".
    - zaat 7y ago
      You can fall to whatever side you wish, but calling someone disingenuous for siding otherwise does not show much of, indeed, goodwill, nor is it just.
      - tssva 7y ago
        The capitalization of "Open Source" makes it a proper noun or adjective which means it refers to a specific thing. This is why the Open Source Initiative (OSI) always uses "Open Source". You know they are referring to open source as defined by them. "open source" would be referring to the general concept which depending on interpretation could include shared source. In my view using the proper vs common version of "open source" places this into a disingenuous attempt to be associated with open source as defined by the OSI.
        zaat 7y ago
        In my view responding immediately with clear clarification of the degree of the code openness, right under the title of the website, places this into this as something which isn't remotely disingenuous. In my view seeing this as disingenuous is, quit frankly, odd. It is also goes against the site comment's guideline (as well as general sane rule) of: Assume good faith.
- httpsterio 7y ago
  Open source does not always mean free. No matter the project you still need to adhere to the license terms even if you have access to the source code.
- maire 7y ago
  Most companies will require legal approval anyway before you are allowed to use it. For instance, at a previous company we were forbidden to use React until Facebook changed over to the MIT license. Facebook had a poison pill buried into their original "open source" license.
kabacha 7y ago
> So to make it simpler do I hereby grant anybody the right to do consulting/support without prior permission as long as it is less than 30.000 USD per year. That seems pretty fair - avoids the issues of freelance work being done with the project. I find it hard to care about big corporations not having access to monetize it but that begs the question - doesn't this reduce possible hosting solutions? Especially since there's no official hosting. Does this license imply that there can't be 3rd party commercial hosting?
Dayshine 7y ago
Hmm, how does this license protect you? https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/ says that I can sell n8n.io as a commercial SaaS product. So I can create and sell a new Zapier using n8n?
- shakna 7y ago
  Under Commons Clause you must bring something of "significant value" in addition to the original product. You can't just spin up a new instance.
  - Operyl 7y ago
    I guess who/how defines what “significant value” is. For example: for some having it automatically spun up and maintained is significant to them.
    - shakna 7y ago
      If the only thing being offered is the product, but as part of an automated pipeline, from my reading of the license it could go either way, depending on the judge hearing the case. That wouldn't be a very comfortable legal position.
      - Operyl 7y ago
        It wouldn’t be very comfortable for either party, honestly. So I’d have to wonder if anybody small would ever try to enforce it.
kcorbitt 7y ago
I am not an IP lawyer, but I'm not sure that you can monetize this project either the way it's currently set up? Since you're accepting third-party pull requests without requiring a copyright assignment or more permissive license from the contributors, I believe that you'll only be allowed to use their contributions under the Apache-with-commons-clause license they submitted their work under.
- phonon 7y ago
  Yeah, that seems like a glaring issue. What's the goal of the license? If not to encourage contributions and building other things on top of it, seems more like a "shared source" license. Might make more sense to make at least part of it fully open source, for everyone to contribute to freely (in both directions) and perhaps keep a smaller part (semi) proprietary.

EvanAnderson 7y ago

I think it's disingenuous of you to call it "Open Source" and I think the distinction matters to more people than you think it does.

swsieber 7y ago
I think "open source (but not really, there's a small restriction)" sums it up better than "source available", so I can understand framing it that way. OTOH, this is likely to never make it into distro repos anywhere. I also wonder if the author is driving to make a business out of it. So I'd make three points: 1) It does affect distribution 2) It otherwise doesn't materially affect how I would use it 3) It seems a little like asking for contributions to a proprietary project.
- d4mi3n 7y ago
  Source Available is pretty sweet if you have a paid product you'd like to do detailed audits on. Especially in regulated environments (finance, medicine, etc). Many enterprises prefer a paid service, as such contracts usually come with somebody assuming liability for data on the system and being around to resolve problems you'd otherwise need to distract an in-house team with.
  - swsieber 7y ago
    I agree. My point is more of "source available" undersells the freedoms it does give you, while "open source" just barely over-represents them, so I can understand framing it as "basically open source".
zaat 7y ago
> Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted, although the proponents of the term say the conditions in the Open Source Definition must be fulfilled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_%22free%22_versus_%22free_and_open%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_...
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  I fall into the "...conditions in the Open Source Definition..." camp. I think many "source available" projects ride on the coattails of the goodwill associated with the term "Open Source".
  - zaat 7y ago
    You can fall to whatever side you wish, but calling someone disingenuous for siding otherwise does not show much of, indeed, goodwill, nor is it just.
    - tssva 7y ago
      The capitalization of "Open Source" makes it a proper noun or adjective which means it refers to a specific thing. This is why the Open Source Initiative (OSI) always uses "Open Source". You know they are referring to open source as defined by them. "open source" would be referring to the general concept which depending on interpretation could include shared source. In my view using the proper vs common version of "open source" places this into a disingenuous attempt to be associated with open source as defined by the OSI.
      - zaat 7y ago
        In my view responding immediately with clear clarification of the degree of the code openness, right under the title of the website, places this into this as something which isn't remotely disingenuous. In my view seeing this as disingenuous is, quit frankly, odd. It is also goes against the site comment's guideline (as well as general sane rule) of: Assume good faith.
httpsterio 7y ago
Open source does not always mean free. No matter the project you still need to adhere to the license terms even if you have access to the source code.
maire 7y ago
Most companies will require legal approval anyway before you are allowed to use it. For instance, at a previous company we were forbidden to use React until Facebook changed over to the MIT license. Facebook had a poison pill buried into their original "open source" license.

kabacha 7y ago

> So to make it simpler do I hereby grant anybody the right to do consulting/support without prior permission as long as it is less than 30.000 USD per year. That seems pretty fair - avoids the issues of freelance work being done with the project. I find it hard to care about big corporations not having access to monetize it but that begs the question - doesn't this reduce possible hosting solutions? Especially since there's no official hosting. Does this license imply that there can't be 3rd party commercial hosting?

Dayshine 7y ago

Hmm, how does this license protect you? https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/ says that I can sell n8n.io as a commercial SaaS product. So I can create and sell a new Zapier using n8n?

shakna 7y ago
Under Commons Clause you must bring something of "significant value" in addition to the original product. You can't just spin up a new instance.
- Operyl 7y ago
  I guess who/how defines what “significant value” is. For example: for some having it automatically spun up and maintained is significant to them.
  - shakna 7y ago
    If the only thing being offered is the product, but as part of an automated pipeline, from my reading of the license it could go either way, depending on the judge hearing the case. That wouldn't be a very comfortable legal position.
    - Operyl 7y ago
      It wouldn’t be very comfortable for either party, honestly. So I’d have to wonder if anybody small would ever try to enforce it.

kcorbitt 7y ago

I am not an IP lawyer, but I'm not sure that you can monetize this project either the way it's currently set up? Since you're accepting third-party pull requests without requiring a copyright assignment or more permissive license from the contributors, I believe that you'll only be allowed to use their contributions under the Apache-with-commons-clause license they submitted their work under.

phonon 7y ago
Yeah, that seems like a glaring issue. What's the goal of the license? If not to encourage contributions and building other things on top of it, seems more like a "shared source" license. Might make more sense to make at least part of it fully open source, for everyone to contribute to freely (in both directions) and perhaps keep a smaller part (semi) proprietary.