5 ms·

Why should we trust you not to change that in the future?

by tedivm 7y ago

the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
Question of trust is always hard. I believe that our heart is at the right place and I think many people interacted with us over the years probably got a pretty good picture of how we work.
- tedivm 7y ago
  That's a real polite way of saying that we can't trust you not to relicense other projects in the future. Lets be clear here too- I'm using your product right now, and I feel that this is a huge betrayal of trust.
  - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
    > That's a real polite way of saying that we can't trust you not to relicense other projects in the future. There is no good answer to a loaded question like this. If you suspect malice I have nothing I can say to counter this.
atonse 7y ago
Unless you're trying to build a competing product to Sentry, nothing's changed, from my interpretation.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  There are several other use cases that will be affected: - Borrowing bits of code from Sentry for use in an unrelated, non-competing commercial product will no longer be possible for many people -- I suspect many companies' legal teams will bar use of BSL-licensed code out of caution, at least until the 3-year conversion point. - Using bits of Sentry for internal, non-distributed projects may not be allowed if there's any chance the project will convert to a commercial product (competing or not) within 3 years. - I suspect there are other scenarios that are technically and legally possible (at least by Sentry's interpretation) but that many corporate lawyers will nix based on an abundance of caution. - And of course, starting a new open-source project with open governance based on current Sentry code will no longer be an option. The thing is, BSL's permissions may seem clear to developers, but lawyers will likely get hung up on how to define "competing", and whether a judge would allow a suit to proceed against a (intuitively speaking) clearly non-competing product based on real or perceived ambiguity in the license or in the case itself. Too often, legal teams "just say no" to anything that falls outside their clearly defined (and legally tested) comfort zones. I don't blame corporate lawyers entirely for that, though - it's really a consequence of the legal climate arising from prior case law (which I believe often proceeded on dubious grounds).
  - bentlegen 7y ago
    > Using bits of Sentry for internal, non-distributed projects may not be allowed if there's any chance the project will convert to a commercial product (competing or not) within 3 years. The license is clear that there is a specific application of the software that is protected; you are not prevented from using the software in a way that prohibits all commercial use. https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE#L12 https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE#L12
  - atonse 7y ago
    Good points but I would say, just like legal teams have become more familiar such open source licenses and their nuances, they’ll eventually come around on this too and be able to better articulate the differences.
  - heyoni 7y ago
    Only your first paragraph is a potential concern. The rest are fine according to the license.
    - TimTheTinker 7y ago
      The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference.
      - heyoni 7y ago
        Other comments are interpreting the license as allowing money to be made so long as the service you’re providing is not hosting error logging. You’re right, the license isn’t as good as it was before, but it’s also not as bad as some are saying.
rndgermandude 7y ago
You shouldn't. Then again, they have no obligation to give you anything in the first place. And yet, they do. If you really don't like what they are doing, you could fork them right now. But my guess is that you won't because then you'd have to do the work you're getting for free now.
- tedivm 7y ago
  Sentry also got work for free from people who assumed the open source project would stay that way. That's the thing about open source- it does have benefits, otherwise people would never choose it. Right now there's this trend where companies take the benefits of open source for themselves, then toss aside the open source community when it looks like it might make them a buck. Ultimately I think that is bad for the community, and that the corporations that do this are putting their profit above the community that helped them grow. I don't think it's unreasonable to point this out.
  - grumpydba 7y ago
    That's why the gpl without CLA remains the best collaborative platform. That's a lesson for me, Stallman was right, as they say.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    The vast majority of outside contributions for any project come from people who use the product already or plan to use it. They contribute value but they also derive value, so to me, that's a wash right there.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    All of those contributions are still open source. You're trying to cast them as having "closed off" the code or betrayed the contributors, but all they've really said is "from this point forward we need some basic protections from our business being ripped off".
  - belorn 7y ago
    > Sentry also got work for free from people who assumed the open source project would stay that way The BSD license is very clear that you can not assume that. A developer who contribute patches under BSD license should have no expectation for what other developers will license code in the future. Licenses is all about defining expectations.
feross 7y ago
Why are you entitled to all future releases of Sentry under the same license terms?
heyoni 7y ago
This is such a perfect example of the vocal minority crying foul. You’re all over this thread whining that a corporation is protecting its interests from parasites because it doesn’t fit your idealistic view of open source. You don’t need to trust them not to change things in the future. If you contributed, you’re still free to use the code your modifications...for free ($). Who is sentry hurting by making this change?

Why should we trust you not to change that in the future?

by tedivm 7y ago

Why should we trust you not to change that in the future?

Question of trust is always hard. I believe that our heart is at the right place and I think many people interacted with us over the years probably got a pretty good picture of how we work.

tedivm 7y ago
That's a real polite way of saying that we can't trust you not to relicense other projects in the future. Lets be clear here too- I'm using your product right now, and I feel that this is a huge betrayal of trust.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
  > That's a real polite way of saying that we can't trust you not to relicense other projects in the future. There is no good answer to a loaded question like this. If you suspect malice I have nothing I can say to counter this.

atonse 7y ago

Unless you're trying to build a competing product to Sentry, nothing's changed, from my interpretation.

TimTheTinker 7y ago
There are several other use cases that will be affected: - Borrowing bits of code from Sentry for use in an unrelated, non-competing commercial product will no longer be possible for many people -- I suspect many companies' legal teams will bar use of BSL-licensed code out of caution, at least until the 3-year conversion point. - Using bits of Sentry for internal, non-distributed projects may not be allowed if there's any chance the project will convert to a commercial product (competing or not) within 3 years. - I suspect there are other scenarios that are technically and legally possible (at least by Sentry's interpretation) but that many corporate lawyers will nix based on an abundance of caution. - And of course, starting a new open-source project with open governance based on current Sentry code will no longer be an option. The thing is, BSL's permissions may seem clear to developers, but lawyers will likely get hung up on how to define "competing", and whether a judge would allow a suit to proceed against a (intuitively speaking) clearly non-competing product based on real or perceived ambiguity in the license or in the case itself. Too often, legal teams "just say no" to anything that falls outside their clearly defined (and legally tested) comfort zones. I don't blame corporate lawyers entirely for that, though - it's really a consequence of the legal climate arising from prior case law (which I believe often proceeded on dubious grounds).
- bentlegen 7y ago
  > Using bits of Sentry for internal, non-distributed projects may not be allowed if there's any chance the project will convert to a commercial product (competing or not) within 3 years. The license is clear that there is a specific application of the software that is protected; you are not prevented from using the software in a way that prohibits all commercial use. https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE#L12 https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE#L12
- atonse 7y ago
  Good points but I would say, just like legal teams have become more familiar such open source licenses and their nuances, they’ll eventually come around on this too and be able to better articulate the differences.
- heyoni 7y ago
  Only your first paragraph is a potential concern. The rest are fine according to the license.
  - TimTheTinker 7y ago
    The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference.
    - heyoni 7y ago
      Other comments are interpreting the license as allowing money to be made so long as the service you’re providing is not hosting error logging. You’re right, the license isn’t as good as it was before, but it’s also not as bad as some are saying.

rndgermandude 7y ago

You shouldn't. Then again, they have no obligation to give you anything in the first place. And yet, they do. If you really don't like what they are doing, you could fork them right now. But my guess is that you won't because then you'd have to do the work you're getting for free now.

tedivm 7y ago
Sentry also got work for free from people who assumed the open source project would stay that way. That's the thing about open source- it does have benefits, otherwise people would never choose it. Right now there's this trend where companies take the benefits of open source for themselves, then toss aside the open source community when it looks like it might make them a buck. Ultimately I think that is bad for the community, and that the corporations that do this are putting their profit above the community that helped them grow. I don't think it's unreasonable to point this out.
- grumpydba 7y ago
  That's why the gpl without CLA remains the best collaborative platform. That's a lesson for me, Stallman was right, as they say.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  The vast majority of outside contributions for any project come from people who use the product already or plan to use it. They contribute value but they also derive value, so to me, that's a wash right there.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  All of those contributions are still open source. You're trying to cast them as having "closed off" the code or betrayed the contributors, but all they've really said is "from this point forward we need some basic protections from our business being ripped off".
- belorn 7y ago
  > Sentry also got work for free from people who assumed the open source project would stay that way The BSD license is very clear that you can not assume that. A developer who contribute patches under BSD license should have no expectation for what other developers will license code in the future. Licenses is all about defining expectations.

feross 7y ago

Why are you entitled to all future releases of Sentry under the same license terms?

heyoni 7y ago

This is such a perfect example of the vocal minority crying foul. You’re all over this thread whining that a corporation is protecting its interests from parasites because it doesn’t fit your idealistic view of open source. You don’t need to trust them not to change things in the future. If you contributed, you’re still free to use the code your modifications...for free ($). Who is sentry hurting by making this change?