6 ms·

This is a very disappointing development. I was hoping to implement Sentry for a side project I have been working on, now I will have to find an alternative or

This is a very disappointing development. I was hoping to implement Sentry for a side project I have been working on, now I will have to find an alternative or use an old version, as I refuse to rely on closed-source software.

gyrgtyn 7y ago
You wanted to run a sentry as a service side project?
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  I have two main side projects I am working on right now- one would be a SaaS product in which I would just be using Sentry as a tool- that would still be allowed under the BSL- however, I am leary of using non-open source code like the BSL because the BSL does not grant the community the freedom to fork it and use that fork as an open source project (Any fork of Sentry going forward would either need to start from old code or be under the BSL license and the new community would be at a disadvantage as no one could use the new product to offer an APM service. This removes the primary motivation for the maintainer (in this case Sentry the company) to remain benevolent. My other side project is a PaaS which I hope to release as Open Source, which relies on several open source products itself. I also hope to offer a hosted version of this product. It is still a very young idea, with some code written for it, trying to get a proof of concept done. I had considered using Sentry for an APM tool in this product- but now if I go that route I will have to fork the pre-BSL version of the Sentry code and maintain it myself... If my PaaS is successful, I do plan to contribute back to the open source tools it will be based on, both in terms of development and financially, as well as promoting them prominently! I am not looking to cut anyone out by providing a low value-add service and keeping all the profits for myself!
  - zeeg 7y ago
    In this case you could request an additional use grant from us (Sentry). It doesn’t mean it’s not possible, it just means you’d need permission.
mythz 7y ago
Nothing about this announcement makes it closed-source software.
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  Huh? Did you read the announcement? They clearly state that it is no longer under an open source license.
  - mythz 7y ago
    It not being recognized as an official OSI license does not make it "closed source", their source code is still fully and freely available to customers who can continue to using and customizing their own modified versions as they see fit. None of which they could do if it was "closed source". Their software also converts into Apache-2.0 after their conversion period, where it by definition also becomes available under a permissive OSI approved license.
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      It is not fitting the requirement widely agreed for defining software Open Source: it creates a restriction on usage.
      - mythz 7y ago
        Which is both clearly spelled out in the article and irrelevant to my original comment where "Nothing about this announcement makes it closed-source software." Being licensed under an OSI approved license (that their software converts to after their conversion period) makes it "Open Source" by definition, it does not make it "closed source".
- eindiran 7y ago
  It is no longer an open source license, and is now a "source available" available license.

gyrgtyn 7y ago

You wanted to run a sentry as a service side project?

ensignavenger 7y ago
I have two main side projects I am working on right now- one would be a SaaS product in which I would just be using Sentry as a tool- that would still be allowed under the BSL- however, I am leary of using non-open source code like the BSL because the BSL does not grant the community the freedom to fork it and use that fork as an open source project (Any fork of Sentry going forward would either need to start from old code or be under the BSL license and the new community would be at a disadvantage as no one could use the new product to offer an APM service. This removes the primary motivation for the maintainer (in this case Sentry the company) to remain benevolent. My other side project is a PaaS which I hope to release as Open Source, which relies on several open source products itself. I also hope to offer a hosted version of this product. It is still a very young idea, with some code written for it, trying to get a proof of concept done. I had considered using Sentry for an APM tool in this product- but now if I go that route I will have to fork the pre-BSL version of the Sentry code and maintain it myself... If my PaaS is successful, I do plan to contribute back to the open source tools it will be based on, both in terms of development and financially, as well as promoting them prominently! I am not looking to cut anyone out by providing a low value-add service and keeping all the profits for myself!
- zeeg 7y ago
  In this case you could request an additional use grant from us (Sentry). It doesn’t mean it’s not possible, it just means you’d need permission.

mythz 7y ago

Nothing about this announcement makes it closed-source software.

ensignavenger 7y ago
Huh? Did you read the announcement? They clearly state that it is no longer under an open source license.
- mythz 7y ago
  It not being recognized as an official OSI license does not make it "closed source", their source code is still fully and freely available to customers who can continue to using and customizing their own modified versions as they see fit. None of which they could do if it was "closed source". Their software also converts into Apache-2.0 after their conversion period, where it by definition also becomes available under a permissive OSI approved license.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    It is not fitting the requirement widely agreed for defining software Open Source: it creates a restriction on usage.
    - mythz 7y ago
      Which is both clearly spelled out in the article and irrelevant to my original comment where "Nothing about this announcement makes it closed-source software." Being licensed under an OSI approved license (that their software converts to after their conversion period) makes it "Open Source" by definition, it does not make it "closed source".
eindiran 7y ago
It is no longer an open source license, and is now a "source available" available license.