5 ms·

Nice work! Off-topic but remember that you can get a surprising amount of analytics using just your web server logs and no JavaScript at all https://goaccess.io

Nice work! Off-topic but remember that you can get a surprising amount of analytics using just your web server logs and no JavaScript at all https://goaccess.io/ https://goaccess.io/

city41 7y ago
It's becoming more common to not have access to the logs. But I agree if you can access them, they can be a better approach.
ripexz 7y ago
Indeed, I've been using goaccess for a while now (https://stats.logpasta.com/ https://stats.logpasta.com/) and it suits my basic needs at least seeing what CLI version the few actual visitors I have use. I haven't had much luck with their "live" report though so I have a Cron job running every few minutes to regenerate it.
yodon 7y ago
Thanks for the goaccess.io suggestion. GoatCounter looked really cool but their crazy decision to go with a GPL-style license for code you run on your website is a pretty serious deal-breaker for me. GoAccess looks much more usable.
- Carpetsmoker 7y ago
  Why is it "crazy"? The reason it uses copyleft is to prevent people from taking my work and operating a competing SaaS with it; I don't think that's very "crazy" IMHO.
  - yodon 7y ago
    It's crazy because the use of the EUPL license forces all your customers to copyleft their website code, which almost no business wants to do, blocking any potential customers from adopting your product. No adoption means no usage, no pull requests, and no revenue. You are free to license your code however you want, but I think you'll find the tremendous effort you put into developing this great project will end up being essentially unused by others simply because of your licensing choice. Monetizing open source projects is incredibly difficult, and simply pasting a GPL or EUPL license text into the project doesn't make them easier to monetize, it makes them harder to monetize.
    - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
      That is not my interpretation of the EUPL, which defines "Derivative" as software "based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof". I don't think that including this could reasonable be considered as that. I could add a clause about it to make it unambiguous, perhaps, but it strikes me as rather redundant as it seems fairly clear to me, unless I missed something? > Monetizing open source projects is incredibly difficult, and simply pasting a GPL or EUPL license text into the project doesn't make them easier to monetize Sure, I don't disagree with that. But as mentioned non-copyleft includes the risk of a certain kind of abuse that I don't really want to take, either.
      - yodon 7y ago
        You have to do what you feel is best in the face of uncertainty, just as potential adopters of your software have to do what they feel is best in the face of uncertainty about the detailed legal interpretation of how GPL-like language applies to libraries included by or bundled with a website. The interpretation of what is or is not a derivative work in this context is a subject that is legitimately complex enough to be the domain of actual lawyers and actual court cases not of armchair opinion-stating by developers. Even a tiny bit of uncertainty over whether ones entire web operations might end up GPL'd or EUPL'd is more legal risk than 99% of your potential customers will be willing to take on. A paragraph of "explanation" written by a non-lawyer and posted next to the formal license is not going to reassure your customers as to how a court will interpret the formal license component. But again how you chose to license your software is your choice, just as whether to allow EUPL'd or GPL'd software into their website is your customer's choice. The business of software is hard, frequently much harder than the writing of software.
        belorn 7y ago
        Have you read the copyright license for google analytics? Their license and EULA has not been tested in court either. There is nothing that proves that google can't claim copyright infringement for all sites using their web products. "You will not (and You will not allow any third party to) (i) copy, modify, adapt, translate or otherwise create derivative works of the Software" As you typed, The interpretation of what is or is not a derivative work in this context is a subject that is legitimately complex. Its not tested, beyond the fact that the companies of 1/3 of the largest websites has had their lawyers green light to use software with such language in the license. So far the bet that a website does not constitute a derivative work of the analytic software it is using is holding.

Nice work! Off-topic but remember that you can get a surprising amount of analytics using just your web server logs and no JavaScript at all https://goaccess.io/ https://goaccess.io/

city41 7y ago

It's becoming more common to not have access to the logs. But I agree if you can access them, they can be a better approach.

ripexz 7y ago

Indeed, I've been using goaccess for a while now (https://stats.logpasta.com/ https://stats.logpasta.com/) and it suits my basic needs at least seeing what CLI version the few actual visitors I have use. I haven't had much luck with their "live" report though so I have a Cron job running every few minutes to regenerate it.

yodon 7y ago

Thanks for the goaccess.io suggestion. GoatCounter looked really cool but their crazy decision to go with a GPL-style license for code you run on your website is a pretty serious deal-breaker for me. GoAccess looks much more usable.

Carpetsmoker 7y ago
Why is it "crazy"? The reason it uses copyleft is to prevent people from taking my work and operating a competing SaaS with it; I don't think that's very "crazy" IMHO.
- yodon 7y ago
  It's crazy because the use of the EUPL license forces all your customers to copyleft their website code, which almost no business wants to do, blocking any potential customers from adopting your product. No adoption means no usage, no pull requests, and no revenue. You are free to license your code however you want, but I think you'll find the tremendous effort you put into developing this great project will end up being essentially unused by others simply because of your licensing choice. Monetizing open source projects is incredibly difficult, and simply pasting a GPL or EUPL license text into the project doesn't make them easier to monetize, it makes them harder to monetize.
  - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
    That is not my interpretation of the EUPL, which defines "Derivative" as software "based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof". I don't think that including this could reasonable be considered as that. I could add a clause about it to make it unambiguous, perhaps, but it strikes me as rather redundant as it seems fairly clear to me, unless I missed something? > Monetizing open source projects is incredibly difficult, and simply pasting a GPL or EUPL license text into the project doesn't make them easier to monetize Sure, I don't disagree with that. But as mentioned non-copyleft includes the risk of a certain kind of abuse that I don't really want to take, either.
    - yodon 7y ago
      You have to do what you feel is best in the face of uncertainty, just as potential adopters of your software have to do what they feel is best in the face of uncertainty about the detailed legal interpretation of how GPL-like language applies to libraries included by or bundled with a website. The interpretation of what is or is not a derivative work in this context is a subject that is legitimately complex enough to be the domain of actual lawyers and actual court cases not of armchair opinion-stating by developers. Even a tiny bit of uncertainty over whether ones entire web operations might end up GPL'd or EUPL'd is more legal risk than 99% of your potential customers will be willing to take on. A paragraph of "explanation" written by a non-lawyer and posted next to the formal license is not going to reassure your customers as to how a court will interpret the formal license component. But again how you chose to license your software is your choice, just as whether to allow EUPL'd or GPL'd software into their website is your customer's choice. The business of software is hard, frequently much harder than the writing of software.
      - belorn 7y ago
        Have you read the copyright license for google analytics? Their license and EULA has not been tested in court either. There is nothing that proves that google can't claim copyright infringement for all sites using their web products. "You will not (and You will not allow any third party to) (i) copy, modify, adapt, translate or otherwise create derivative works of the Software" As you typed, The interpretation of what is or is not a derivative work in this context is a subject that is legitimately complex. Its not tested, beyond the fact that the companies of 1/3 of the largest websites has had their lawyers green light to use software with such language in the license. So far the bet that a website does not constitute a derivative work of the analytic software it is using is holding.