4 ms·

Honestly, I expected some issues because of calling it "Open Source" (even though I did not expect this level, it sounds like I am the antichrist). I extra ment

Honestly, I expected some issues because of calling it "Open Source" (even though I did not expect this level, it sounds like I am the antichrist). I extra mention everywhere that the Commons Clause is attached, wrote a special section in the docs about it and even put Open Source additionally in quotes. I am sorry that it upsets you but I wrote, why I did it, in the docs and I think that are viable points. I can also understand your point. If I would write Open Source and people would not allow to use it for free I would even agree but for now, I stand by my decision. I am however open. I created that poll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195516 The people can vote what they think. If a reasonable amount of people participates (let's say 100) and they say I should stop I will change all the texts.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
> I extra mention everywhere that the Commons Clause is attached, wrote a special section in the docs about it and even put Open Source additionally in quotes Screenshots of the home page: https://sr.ht/Rccz.png https://sr.ht/Rccz.png https://sr.ht/VxP-.png https://sr.ht/VxP-.png No quotes here. You're apropriating the language of open source ("free and open source" is also a key phrase people will recognize and make assumptions from) to describe software you know isn't. In order to know that this page is bullshit, you have to come here already knowing that "Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause" is not open source. The (awful) license apropriates the "Apache 2.0" name, which is a respected and well known open source license, and aporopriates the language of "Creative Commons", likewise respected and well-known to mean something entirely different from this. Someone who isn't informed about this problem could easily mistake this project for open source. You're deliberately taking advantage of this to gaslight the open source software community. Your software is source-available. Call it that. If you're ashamed to do so then maybe you've chosen a shitty license. You know that you're lying about "open source". You've admitted as much yourself. The authors of the Commons Clause themselves acknoweldge that it's not open source. > I created that poll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195516 The issue I filed here also includes 11 votes against at the time of writing: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40 https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40 Setting an arbitrarily high bar of 100 votes for a poll which will never leave /new is just more gaslighting. What's your problem, man?
anderspitman 7y ago
I'd be careful about reading too much into the results of that poll, or the number of upvotes on the github issue. The people who disagree with you are far more incentivized to vote than those who agree as well as those who are neutral.
- janober 7y ago
  Thanks a lot! Yes agree but the fact that they care very much and the other group way less is a sign that I should change it if I can resolve the situation like that. Why not make them "happy" If I have the chance? The only reason I am hesitating is that I fear to confuse more people than I help. If people (including myself) would know what (actually had to look up the term again) "source-available" means I would have used it from the start. But nobody does. So the question is, is it worth confusing a big group of none-vocal-people to make a small group of vocal-people happy? But I can understand definitely understand their point. So have to decide on that the next days.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago

> I extra mention everywhere that the Commons Clause is attached, wrote a special section in the docs about it and even put Open Source additionally in quotes Screenshots of the home page: https://sr.ht/Rccz.png https://sr.ht/Rccz.png https://sr.ht/VxP-.png https://sr.ht/VxP-.png No quotes here. You're apropriating the language of open source ("free and open source" is also a key phrase people will recognize and make assumptions from) to describe software you know isn't. In order to know that this page is bullshit, you have to come here already knowing that "Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause" is not open source. The (awful) license apropriates the "Apache 2.0" name, which is a respected and well known open source license, and aporopriates the language of "Creative Commons", likewise respected and well-known to mean something entirely different from this. Someone who isn't informed about this problem could easily mistake this project for open source. You're deliberately taking advantage of this to gaslight the open source software community. Your software is source-available. Call it that. If you're ashamed to do so then maybe you've chosen a shitty license. You know that you're lying about "open source". You've admitted as much yourself. The authors of the Commons Clause themselves acknoweldge that it's not open source. > I created that poll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195516 The issue I filed here also includes 11 votes against at the time of writing: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40 https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40 Setting an arbitrarily high bar of 100 votes for a poll which will never leave /new is just more gaslighting. What's your problem, man?

anderspitman 7y ago

I'd be careful about reading too much into the results of that poll, or the number of upvotes on the github issue. The people who disagree with you are far more incentivized to vote than those who agree as well as those who are neutral.

janober 7y ago
Thanks a lot! Yes agree but the fact that they care very much and the other group way less is a sign that I should change it if I can resolve the situation like that. Why not make them "happy" If I have the chance? The only reason I am hesitating is that I fear to confuse more people than I help. If people (including myself) would know what (actually had to look up the term again) "source-available" means I would have used it from the start. But nobody does. So the question is, is it worth confusing a big group of none-vocal-people to make a small group of vocal-people happy? But I can understand definitely understand their point. So have to decide on that the next days.