6 ms·
It does reduce the competition of the "We provide Sentry as a Service" kind but it still allows people to create their own Sentry-like product of which they can
by DasIch 7y ago
It does reduce the competition of the "We provide Sentry as a Service" kind but it still allows people to create their own Sentry-like product of which they can also provide as a service.
I think for customers having different companies have their own approaches to solving this problem is vastly preferable to having different companies solve the same problem in exactly the same way.
- tedivm 7y agoIt would be cool if they started that way, but closing their source and pretending that it's to make the market more competitive is really a stretch.
- penagwin 7y agoThey aren't closing their source though, just making it against the license to use it as a hosted service. Example: Our company self-hosts sentry, this license won't effect us at all, we're still free to use and modify the source. We only use it internally - we don't sell "access" to it. --- This is cropping up more and more with various software companies. They _want_ to keep their source open. But people take the source, and just start selling it (Looking at you amazon) without actually contributing. It's one of those, "This is why we can't have nice things"
- tedivm 7y ago"Open source" has a definition, and they are removing their project from that open source definition. Even their own blog post acknowledges that they are no longer open source.
- squiggleblaz 7y agoHow's it different from AGPL? It seems like AGPL creates certain restrictions on the internal order of a company which uses AGPL code for the benefit of the AGPLed code's community. And this licence is basically the same.
- pluma 7y agoBecause the BSL flat out bans the use of the source code for a specific purpose for 36 months and mostly behaves like Apache-2.0 for most other intents and purposes, whereas the AGPL affects all users (commercial or non) and requires them to publish source code for all publicly accessible services using the AGPL licensed code, regardless of purpose. If MongoDB were AGPL, both a company providing MongoDB-as-a-Service and a non-profit web app using MongoDB in the backend would equally need to publish their source code. The BSL just says "you can't do this one specific thing for 36 months". The AGPL is a more viral version of the GPL, which basically says "if your code uses this code, your code is now GPL licensed" and also "for all GPL licensed software you distribute, you must also make its source code available" (with the AGPL just redefining that "distribute" as "distribute or make accessible as a service").
- mdpye 7y agoSaying that the source is "closed" seems a stretch though. Its certainly not free software any more. But even if it doesn't meet the official definition of open either (at least, for 3 years per contribution), there's still a lot of utility to be had.
- tedivm 7y agoSure- freeware, trialware, and other licenses have a lot of utility too. That doesn't make them "open source" though. Words have meaning, and trying to change the meaning of open source to benefit corporations is not something I'm willing to get behind.
- wolco 7y agoBut this restricts corporations from selling this as a service. Similiar to how some open source liceases require you to provide any modifications if you choose to reuse and modify. They are still open source because the source is open. Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.
- pritambaral 7y ago> They are still open source because the source is open. That is not the definition of 'Open Source'. Using it interchangeably with 'open source' just adds confusion. And from the other uses of 'open source' in your comment, it seems you're using it in the same sense as 'Open Source' > Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want. No Open Source license allows you to "do whatever you want". Even the WTFPL, which comes close to that goal, is not an Open Source license. Being Open Source comes with a few requirements, which every Open Source license, licensor, and licensee must fulfill. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- tedivm 7y agoOpen Source has a definition. It includes things like GPL and MIT- a wide range of options. The BSL is not an open source license.