4 ms·

I think it’s fine to debate licensing and have a good discussion what constitutes free and open source software. BUT I’m really shocked by this and other abusi

by frb 7y ago

I think it’s fine to debate licensing and have a good discussion what constitutes free and open source software. BUT I’m really shocked by this and other abusive comments that you made here. I’m using the software and even contributing to it. I’m aware of it’s license and ok with it. I am also aware that others might have issues with the licensing and might not contribute. Everyone is free to decide - that’s fine! However, insulting the author and accusing him of deception is just wrong. The author wants to contribute something to the community and is by no means an expert on licensing. He has clearly explained his rationale / fear and was is very open to feedback. With your expertise you could have provided constructive feedback and maybe helped to eventually move the project to a better license. You chose otherwise. Every time it’s sad to see this kind of behavior eventually driving people away from building things and contributing to other projects.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
It's no skin off my back when someone makes non-OSS/nonfree software. I won't use it, but that's a choice they can make. It doesn't bother me that you or anyone else would want to contribute to such a project, either. What I won't stand for is lying about that software's status as open source. He may not be an expert on licensing but he's had it explained to him by experts and chooses to continue lying. That's not acceptable behavior. >Every time it’s sad to see this kind of behavior eventually driving people away from building things and contributing to other projects. It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives.
- janober 7y ago
  > It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives. Sorry, can you elaborate? I invested probably around 1 year in writing n8n and I allow now everybody to use it for free (with the limitations discussed). I assume that over 90% of the people use it and I do not receive a single Pull-Request or Dollar (which is fine and I am totally OK with) and of the other 9% I guess they spend between a few hours to maybe a week in total in contributions (again also fine). Then there is probably less than 1% which does more than that. How am I asking for more than I give?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
    You're asking for more of contributors than you give back to them. You ask them for their work but then you and you alone reap all of the financial benfits.
    - janober 7y ago
      Sorry still do not understand. So you are saying that I screw over a person which uses n8n (else he would probably not contribute anyway), for whom I assume n8n is in some way helpful (so makes his life easier, saves him time, the company makes more money, ...), who can use all the code I wrote for free? And just because he contributed some code and I do not allow other people (which is in 99.999%, not the contributor) to make money directly with n8n?
      - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
        I didn't say you screwed them over. I said you take their patch and use it to create value that you deny to the contributor. I'm not weaseling words here. Some contributors will be okay with that. But some won't be - and you're misleading them by telling them that it's open source when it's not. When something is called "open source", it's assumed to meet a certain criteria - the OSD - and can be used as a mental shortcut. When someone sees that your software is "open source", they'll probably believe you - but it's not. You're taking advantage of that.
        janober 7y ago
        Sorry english it not my native language. Thought that is kind of an OK short version of "asking for more of contributors than you give back to them". Did not want to weasel your words (hope I did at least use that correctly)! I tried (apparently not successfuly) to write everywhere very clearly that the Commons Clause got applied and if somebody contributes to it he would normally have spend some time with the project and he should be aware of the license situation. Would never have expected that somebody would find out later that it is not the case and he would then be upset about it. But thanks, not sure that it would happen but still one more thing for me to consider (as you are right that it could happen).
- frb 7y ago
  > What I won't stand for is lying about that software's status as open source. He may not be an expert on licensing but he's had it explained to him by experts and chooses to continue lying. That's not acceptable behavior. How do you know this? What makes you assume that following the poll he won’t change the wording? Maybe even the license? Why do you still accuse him of lying? Maybe it’s just an honest mistake? In dubio pro reo, right? > It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives. I disagree. We need to be respectful in the way we interact with each other. Proper social intercourse is more important than the the topics we discuss. I think everyone sees and respects how you feel about free / open source licensing. Why can’t you just be a little bit more respectful towards the choices and opinions of others?

by frb 7y ago

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago

It's no skin off my back when someone makes non-OSS/nonfree software. I won't use it, but that's a choice they can make. It doesn't bother me that you or anyone else would want to contribute to such a project, either. What I won't stand for is lying about that software's status as open source. He may not be an expert on licensing but he's had it explained to him by experts and chooses to continue lying. That's not acceptable behavior. >Every time it’s sad to see this kind of behavior eventually driving people away from building things and contributing to other projects. It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives.

janober 7y ago
> It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives. Sorry, can you elaborate? I invested probably around 1 year in writing n8n and I allow now everybody to use it for free (with the limitations discussed). I assume that over 90% of the people use it and I do not receive a single Pull-Request or Dollar (which is fine and I am totally OK with) and of the other 9% I guess they spend between a few hours to maybe a week in total in contributions (again also fine). Then there is probably less than 1% which does more than that. How am I asking for more than I give?
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
  You're asking for more of contributors than you give back to them. You ask them for their work but then you and you alone reap all of the financial benfits.
  - janober 7y ago
    Sorry still do not understand. So you are saying that I screw over a person which uses n8n (else he would probably not contribute anyway), for whom I assume n8n is in some way helpful (so makes his life easier, saves him time, the company makes more money, ...), who can use all the code I wrote for free? And just because he contributed some code and I do not allow other people (which is in 99.999%, not the contributor) to make money directly with n8n?
    - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
      I didn't say you screwed them over. I said you take their patch and use it to create value that you deny to the contributor. I'm not weaseling words here. Some contributors will be okay with that. But some won't be - and you're misleading them by telling them that it's open source when it's not. When something is called "open source", it's assumed to meet a certain criteria - the OSD - and can be used as a mental shortcut. When someone sees that your software is "open source", they'll probably believe you - but it's not. You're taking advantage of that.
      - janober 7y ago
        Sorry english it not my native language. Thought that is kind of an OK short version of "asking for more of contributors than you give back to them". Did not want to weasel your words (hope I did at least use that correctly)! I tried (apparently not successfuly) to write everywhere very clearly that the Commons Clause got applied and if somebody contributes to it he would normally have spend some time with the project and he should be aware of the license situation. Would never have expected that somebody would find out later that it is not the case and he would then be upset about it. But thanks, not sure that it would happen but still one more thing for me to consider (as you are right that it could happen).
frb 7y ago
> What I won't stand for is lying about that software's status as open source. He may not be an expert on licensing but he's had it explained to him by experts and chooses to continue lying. That's not acceptable behavior. How do you know this? What makes you assume that following the poll he won’t change the wording? Maybe even the license? Why do you still accuse him of lying? Maybe it’s just an honest mistake? In dubio pro reo, right? > It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives. I disagree. We need to be respectful in the way we interact with each other. Proper social intercourse is more important than the the topics we discuss. I think everyone sees and respects how you feel about free / open source licensing. Why can’t you just be a little bit more respectful towards the choices and opinions of others?