4 ms·

Why not GPLv3+? Under that license, it's possible for someone to offer a commercial fork, but it requires that the source is released under the same license, wh

Why not GPLv3+? Under that license, it's possible for someone to offer a commercial fork, but it requires that the source is released under the same license, which makes third-party commercial forks 1) not a good business plan and 2) not contain code that the original author can't merge to the original branch, which are both aspects desired by the author. The GPL is a free/open-source license as defined by FSF/OSI. If additional permissions are needed, they can be added as allowed by section 7 of the GPLv3. In my opinion, the GPL fosters the best free software community because contributers can be certain that their code is not used in "anti-free-software" ways. EDIT: s/GPL/AGPL

tracker1 7y ago
Amazon, Azure and GCP could burry Sentry as a company with that option. It's actually happened a few times at this point.
- vortico 7y ago
  Can you give an example? Is what you're referring to what the AGPL is designed to fix?
  - jamie_ca 7y ago
    If AWS decides to "adopt" your platform, and autoscale it, and undercut your sustainable pricing model because they have economy of scale, does it even matter that the source is available? If you want a concrete example, take Redis. (and it was longer ago, but I think I recall something similar with mongodb) Redis Labs offers a hosted cloud offering, Redis Cloud Pro. They literally run off of AWS, as near as I can tell just selling managed EC2 instances, with replication etc. Then Amazon launches ElasticCache, which is running apparently unmodified Redis code, with AWS-developed management software on top. Redis changed their licensing following that launch, for mainly the same reasoning as Sentry mentioned - Open-source company sells managed hosting, uses that money to further development of the open-source software. AWS (or Azure, or Google) launches a competing service, contributes nothing back to the open-source software. It's not healthy for the long-term prospects of the community (but it's great for AWS investors bottom lines).
    - pritambaral 7y ago
      But Redis was always BSD licensed. Every release of Redis was released with the full knowledge that anyone could do anything they wanted to with Redis, as long as they provided attribution and didn't claim a warranty. Redis also continues to be BSD licensed. For even more nuance, Redis Labs wasn't the author of Redis, they only sponsored the author. They weren't the first sponsors either, and nothing's stopping others from sponsoring Redis either, as long as it continues to be BSD licensed. That's the point of Open Source, that anyone can come with even just a brick to add to the cathedral, and everyone enjoys the benefits from the addition of that brick. With closed source software, that freedom is gone.; all progress now has to go through (and be owned by) just one entity. I wouldn't want to contribute to a BSLed project because I'd be a second-class citizen in it. And even I did put out a BSLed patch to a BSLed project, the project owners can't use it for as long as I retain the copyrights on my patch.
      - jamie_ca 7y ago
        Ok then, the extra modules that Redis Labs maintains, which used to be licensed under a modified Apache2 licence, and are now under a "source available" license because it causes less confusion about if it's actually OSI sanctioned or not. https://redislabs.com/legal/licenses/ https://redislabs.com/legal/licenses/
    - tracker1 7y ago
      This is one of the things I appreciate with Azure's Marketplace, at least it's easier to list/find services on Azure with pricing baked in...
Hallucinaut 7y ago
But it doesn't necessarily have to be a fork. It can be the raw unadulterated software that Amazon wraps a service layer around and then who would trust the a small player against one of the largest companies in the world? If Amazon needs to make changes and opem source it, they can and without risk to their market because its value is in scale, balance sheet protection, name recognition for management buy in, and the integration on their AWS platform.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
TheCoreh 7y ago
GPL is only concerned about redistribution of your program. A modified version can be kept private as long as it's hosted on your own servers and not distributed. The primary concern of Sentry is large cloud providers that have more capital and better economies of scale providing their hosted service for a cheaper price.
- vortico 7y ago
  I see. Would AGPL fully solve this problem?
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    Not fully but 99%. Most "SaaS" companies would avoid running it or pay a license for a special approval.
    - vortico 7y ago
      What's the 1%? Of course, paying a license would be a desirable negotation between the author and SaaS company, so this isn't an "issue".
  - kyle-rb 7y ago
    The way I see it, the BSL is similar to the AGPL but weaker. Running AGPL code on your server without making it all AGPL or GPL (which itself is only possible because of an explicit exception) is discouraged, or at minimum a legal gray area, at least from what I understand. BSL code on the other hand is totally fine to run on your server, as long as the service you're providing isn't within the specified area. But since you're not "free" to use that code in any product, it's not considered free software. Personally, I think at some point the distinction between free and not free is arbitrary at some point, because while it's true that the BSL code can't be freely reused in truly open source project, you also can't reuse AGPL code if you're using the vast majority of open source licenses for your project.
upofadown 7y ago
You probably meant the GNU Affero General Public License in this case cuz the software in question runs on a server on the network
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tracker1 7y ago

Amazon, Azure and GCP could burry Sentry as a company with that option. It's actually happened a few times at this point.

vortico 7y ago
Can you give an example? Is what you're referring to what the AGPL is designed to fix?
- jamie_ca 7y ago
  If AWS decides to "adopt" your platform, and autoscale it, and undercut your sustainable pricing model because they have economy of scale, does it even matter that the source is available? If you want a concrete example, take Redis. (and it was longer ago, but I think I recall something similar with mongodb) Redis Labs offers a hosted cloud offering, Redis Cloud Pro. They literally run off of AWS, as near as I can tell just selling managed EC2 instances, with replication etc. Then Amazon launches ElasticCache, which is running apparently unmodified Redis code, with AWS-developed management software on top. Redis changed their licensing following that launch, for mainly the same reasoning as Sentry mentioned - Open-source company sells managed hosting, uses that money to further development of the open-source software. AWS (or Azure, or Google) launches a competing service, contributes nothing back to the open-source software. It's not healthy for the long-term prospects of the community (but it's great for AWS investors bottom lines).
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    But Redis was always BSD licensed. Every release of Redis was released with the full knowledge that anyone could do anything they wanted to with Redis, as long as they provided attribution and didn't claim a warranty. Redis also continues to be BSD licensed. For even more nuance, Redis Labs wasn't the author of Redis, they only sponsored the author. They weren't the first sponsors either, and nothing's stopping others from sponsoring Redis either, as long as it continues to be BSD licensed. That's the point of Open Source, that anyone can come with even just a brick to add to the cathedral, and everyone enjoys the benefits from the addition of that brick. With closed source software, that freedom is gone.; all progress now has to go through (and be owned by) just one entity. I wouldn't want to contribute to a BSLed project because I'd be a second-class citizen in it. And even I did put out a BSLed patch to a BSLed project, the project owners can't use it for as long as I retain the copyrights on my patch.
    - jamie_ca 7y ago
      Ok then, the extra modules that Redis Labs maintains, which used to be licensed under a modified Apache2 licence, and are now under a "source available" license because it causes less confusion about if it's actually OSI sanctioned or not. https://redislabs.com/legal/licenses/ https://redislabs.com/legal/licenses/
  - tracker1 7y ago
    This is one of the things I appreciate with Azure's Marketplace, at least it's easier to list/find services on Azure with pricing baked in...

Hallucinaut 7y ago

But it doesn't necessarily have to be a fork. It can be the raw unadulterated software that Amazon wraps a service layer around and then who would trust the a small player against one of the largest companies in the world? If Amazon needs to make changes and opem source it, they can and without risk to their market because its value is in scale, balance sheet protection, name recognition for management buy in, and the integration on their AWS platform.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

TheCoreh 7y ago

GPL is only concerned about redistribution of your program. A modified version can be kept private as long as it's hosted on your own servers and not distributed. The primary concern of Sentry is large cloud providers that have more capital and better economies of scale providing their hosted service for a cheaper price.

vortico 7y ago
I see. Would AGPL fully solve this problem?
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  Not fully but 99%. Most "SaaS" companies would avoid running it or pay a license for a special approval.
  - vortico 7y ago
    What's the 1%? Of course, paying a license would be a desirable negotation between the author and SaaS company, so this isn't an "issue".
- kyle-rb 7y ago
  The way I see it, the BSL is similar to the AGPL but weaker. Running AGPL code on your server without making it all AGPL or GPL (which itself is only possible because of an explicit exception) is discouraged, or at minimum a legal gray area, at least from what I understand. BSL code on the other hand is totally fine to run on your server, as long as the service you're providing isn't within the specified area. But since you're not "free" to use that code in any product, it's not considered free software. Personally, I think at some point the distinction between free and not free is arbitrary at some point, because while it's true that the BSL code can't be freely reused in truly open source project, you also can't reuse AGPL code if you're using the vast majority of open source licenses for your project.

upofadown 7y ago

You probably meant the GNU Affero General Public License in this case cuz the software in question runs on a server on the network

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]