4 ms·

Which parts are open source in usertrack ? you say not completely open-source

XCSme 6y ago
I say it's not completely open-source mainly because it's not free and people usually expect open-source to equal free. Once you purchase it you get full access to the original server-side code (PHP, MySQL). For the client-side part you only get the bundled JS/HTML/CSS (the original client-side source code is TypeScript, React), mostly because otherwise I would have to provide all the build tools and document better the code, tooling, building, releasing, etc.
- AbdHicham 6y ago
  I understand now, thank you for clarifying :)
- viraptor 6y ago
  > people usually expect open-source to equal free. Open source has a specific meaning - is the Software released on an open source license. (https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses) For example if you pay enough, you get ms windows source as well - that doesn't make it "not completely open source". Your project doesn't seem to be open source at all.
  - mgkimsal 6y ago
    I think the term 'shared source' was coined to describe that particular business model (under certain conditions, the code is shared, and perhaps modifications may be allowed in some scenarios, but no redistribution).
  - XCSme 6y ago
    Sorry for the misunderstanding then, I might be using the wrong terminology. I have seen many other products that are marketed as "open source" because you get the source code after you purchase it, so it is literally "open source", but not "open-source" as in released under an open-source license. I am personally not marketing userTrak as open-source and I will stop using similar terms if other people do have a strong opinion about what "open-source" actually means.
- ffpip 6y ago
  Did you change the license? I think I stumbled upon your website on HN comment a few months ago. Didn't it be free? Great product and an excellent demo!
  - XCSme 6y ago
    Thank you! userTrack was never free, but I did change the pricing model from lifetime, to yearly to now being one-time payment + yearly payments for updates. I would love to make userTrack free if I can find a sustainable way to work on it. Most other similar open-source software offers a "hosted" version to get revenue, but my goal is to promote decentralization and self-hosting in general, so me focusing on the hosted version would go against my goal and beliefs. I really want to see a feature where any non-technical person can choose a few products and have them running on their own VPS/server in a few clicks. This would have many advantages for the clients AND for the developers: * Clients pay a lot less for a products * Developers must focus more on product and performance, leading to higher quality products. * Hugely increased privacy for the average internet user and for the own data of the client using the product * Better performance (each client has their own server so it is more likely to have more resources) * Better latencies (each client can choose to use/host their product on a local datacenter) * Better data transparency, easier migrations and fewer vendor lock-ins (if you own the server and the data on it you can most likely always export it in some form) I think there are many other advantages for both companies and clients. The current SaaS environment makes it really easy for companies to ask huge amounts of money for services just because they want to, as the client has no real alternative unless he is really technical and can spend days installing and maintaining a self-hosted software that rarely gets updated.
    - ffpip 6y ago
      > userTrack was never free... Sorry if it seemed like I was complaining about the pricing change. I was just wondering whether I remembered it correctly from here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24207129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24207129) It's a great product. People will pay for it.
      - 6y ago
- Macha 6y ago
  From your license agreements (this language appears in all 3): You are NOT allowed to: Redistribute in any way any of the userTrack files or any parts of the userTrack's source code (with the exception of the public tracker JavaScript files that have to be included on your site). Install userTrack on someone else's server. Continue using userTrack or offering userTrack access to others after this license agreement has been voided (either via a refund, license period expiration or legal action). This is not open source (or even "fair code" as redis etc advocate for). Providing the source but under a license like this is usually referred to as visible source or shared source
  - XCSme 6y ago
    You are correct, I did confuse the terms "visible source" with "open source". The way userTrack is currently distributed is as any other digital product (you pay for it and you are not allowed to sell or redistribute copies of it) with the mention that the server-side code is un-compiled and un-obfuscated so you can transparently see what it does, how it does it and change it if you want. I am not sure that fully open-sourcing it is the way to go as I've seen so many projects die or disappear because the maintainers didn't have a lot of incentives to keep improving it or simply no longer had time to work on it. I also think that it's fair to pay for something that brings value to you also knowing that by paying for it you support its further development.

I say it's not completely open-source mainly because it's not free and people usually expect open-source to equal free. Once you purchase it you get full access to the original server-side code (PHP, MySQL). For the client-side part you only get the bundled JS/HTML/CSS (the original client-side source code is TypeScript, React), mostly because otherwise I would have to provide all the build tools and document better the code, tooling, building, releasing, etc.

AbdHicham 6y ago
I understand now, thank you for clarifying :)
viraptor 6y ago
> people usually expect open-source to equal free. Open source has a specific meaning - is the Software released on an open source license. (https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses) For example if you pay enough, you get ms windows source as well - that doesn't make it "not completely open source". Your project doesn't seem to be open source at all.
- mgkimsal 6y ago
  I think the term 'shared source' was coined to describe that particular business model (under certain conditions, the code is shared, and perhaps modifications may be allowed in some scenarios, but no redistribution).
- XCSme 6y ago
  Sorry for the misunderstanding then, I might be using the wrong terminology. I have seen many other products that are marketed as "open source" because you get the source code after you purchase it, so it is literally "open source", but not "open-source" as in released under an open-source license. I am personally not marketing userTrak as open-source and I will stop using similar terms if other people do have a strong opinion about what "open-source" actually means.
ffpip 6y ago
Did you change the license? I think I stumbled upon your website on HN comment a few months ago. Didn't it be free? Great product and an excellent demo!
- XCSme 6y ago
  Thank you! userTrack was never free, but I did change the pricing model from lifetime, to yearly to now being one-time payment + yearly payments for updates. I would love to make userTrack free if I can find a sustainable way to work on it. Most other similar open-source software offers a "hosted" version to get revenue, but my goal is to promote decentralization and self-hosting in general, so me focusing on the hosted version would go against my goal and beliefs. I really want to see a feature where any non-technical person can choose a few products and have them running on their own VPS/server in a few clicks. This would have many advantages for the clients AND for the developers: * Clients pay a lot less for a products * Developers must focus more on product and performance, leading to higher quality products. * Hugely increased privacy for the average internet user and for the own data of the client using the product * Better performance (each client has their own server so it is more likely to have more resources) * Better latencies (each client can choose to use/host their product on a local datacenter) * Better data transparency, easier migrations and fewer vendor lock-ins (if you own the server and the data on it you can most likely always export it in some form) I think there are many other advantages for both companies and clients. The current SaaS environment makes it really easy for companies to ask huge amounts of money for services just because they want to, as the client has no real alternative unless he is really technical and can spend days installing and maintaining a self-hosted software that rarely gets updated.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    > userTrack was never free... Sorry if it seemed like I was complaining about the pricing change. I was just wondering whether I remembered it correctly from here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24207129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24207129) It's a great product. People will pay for it.
    - 6y ago
Macha 6y ago
From your license agreements (this language appears in all 3): You are NOT allowed to: Redistribute in any way any of the userTrack files or any parts of the userTrack's source code (with the exception of the public tracker JavaScript files that have to be included on your site). Install userTrack on someone else's server. Continue using userTrack or offering userTrack access to others after this license agreement has been voided (either via a refund, license period expiration or legal action). This is not open source (or even "fair code" as redis etc advocate for). Providing the source but under a license like this is usually referred to as visible source or shared source
- XCSme 6y ago
  You are correct, I did confuse the terms "visible source" with "open source". The way userTrack is currently distributed is as any other digital product (you pay for it and you are not allowed to sell or redistribute copies of it) with the mention that the server-side code is un-compiled and un-obfuscated so you can transparently see what it does, how it does it and change it if you want. I am not sure that fully open-sourcing it is the way to go as I've seen so many projects die or disappear because the maintainers didn't have a lot of incentives to keep improving it or simply no longer had time to work on it. I also think that it's fair to pay for something that brings value to you also knowing that by paying for it you support its further development.