5 ms·

Certainly a fair critique, and one we can admit we saw coming. We currently use the BSL license, created by MariaDB and used by companies like Sentry. We do th

by sbauch 6y ago

Certainly a fair critique, and one we can admit we saw coming. We currently use the BSL license, created by MariaDB and used by companies like Sentry. We do think Osso is open source by common understanding and view the BSL as a fair model that places no restrictions on good actors - the license is intended to protect us from copycats profiting off our work, while allowing anyone that needs to integrate SAML into an app they’re building free reign. You’re free to use Osso as a widget, but you can’t use it to start a widget factory. "Source available" seems like a fair compromise, thanks for the suggestion. FWIW, We're big fans of Sentry's explanation of the BSL license - https://sentry.io/_/open-source/ https://sentry.io/_/open-source/

simplecto 6y ago
I support this. I would gladly consider paying for this product should an enterprise customer come along. In the mean time the free version lets me learn and experience the full product.
- sbauch 6y ago
  You are absolutely free to use Osso's source to onboard and authenticate your own customers without paying us! The goal of the license is to prevent someone from creating their own SAAS offering that competes with ours. Using Osso for your own app is within rights granted by the license. But to your point, we also offer a demo instance that you can use in order to build out your integration, and then when a customer comes along, start paying us and swap out some ENV variables and you're ready to go!
bawolff 6y ago
> Certainly a fair critique, and one we can admit we saw coming. So you intentionally made false statements about your product, which you knew ahead of time were false and if believed might conceivably make people more likely to buy it? That's normally called fraud. The long winded justification doesn't matter. You're under no moral obligation to make your product open source. You are under a moral (and probably legal but ianal) not to do bait and switches.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Right on. This kind of thing keeps happening. Fortunately, HN and other communities have a surprisingly sharp eye for these lies and can generally be relied upon to call them out, but people still try it on. Here's another example: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40 https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40
- sbauch 6y ago
  I don't think we've intentionally made false statements nor committed any fraud. But we appreciate the feedback, we'll review as a team and see what sort of decision we can make that will maintain source availability without upsetting folks who allow OSI to define "open source". We made some mistakes, we're very early, and we were hoping to have a (constructive) conversation around licensing and sustainable open source.
whoknew1122 6y ago
> "We do think Osso is open source by common understanding and view the BSL as a fair model that places no restrictions on good actors - the license is intended to protect us from copycats profiting off our work, while allowing anyone that needs to integrate SAML into an app they’re building free reign." The common understanding of open source is that source code is available, redistribution free, and derivative works are allowed. MariaDB specifically states that BSL isn't open source: > "We have not certified BSL as complying to the Open Source Definition by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). However, all source code is available from the start and most of the OSI criteria are met. As long as the software is used within the usage limitations, it’s free to use at no cost." Open source = no usage limitations.
- sbauch 6y ago
  As I've mentioned or alluded to in other comments, I think "open source" as you describe it is broken and unsustainable, and we're happy to have a constructive conversation about commercially viable open source. But if we can't agree that the definition of "open source", like any word or phrase, can change over time, then I don't think there's much of a constructive conversation to be had. Would you suggest we remove any mention of "open source" from our documentation etc.?
  - bawolff 6y ago
    > I think "open source" as you describe it is broken and unsustainable, Then dont claim to use an open source license. Its just recently people have felt foss is commercially viable. For most of its history people believed that foss was not commercially viable. That's why it was considered a radical view. You want to have the cake and eat it too. You're trying to ride the wave of goodwill that open source provides without paying your dues. Yes open source makes it harder to be commercially viable. If it didn't, if it only provided benefits, everything would be open source. > But if we can't agree that the definition of "open source", like any word or phrase, can change over time If i sold nut free chocolate bars, and then someone died of alergic reaction, to which i responded by saying, definitions change over time peanuts arent included in nut-free, would you accept that? Yes, words can in principle change over time - but you can't just change meanings unilateral, especially not as part of a false advertising campaign to mislead users into thinking you are something that you are not.

by sbauch 6y ago

simplecto 6y ago

I support this. I would gladly consider paying for this product should an enterprise customer come along. In the mean time the free version lets me learn and experience the full product.

sbauch 6y ago
You are absolutely free to use Osso's source to onboard and authenticate your own customers without paying us! The goal of the license is to prevent someone from creating their own SAAS offering that competes with ours. Using Osso for your own app is within rights granted by the license. But to your point, we also offer a demo instance that you can use in order to build out your integration, and then when a customer comes along, start paying us and swap out some ENV variables and you're ready to go!

bawolff 6y ago

> Certainly a fair critique, and one we can admit we saw coming. So you intentionally made false statements about your product, which you knew ahead of time were false and if believed might conceivably make people more likely to buy it? That's normally called fraud. The long winded justification doesn't matter. You're under no moral obligation to make your product open source. You are under a moral (and probably legal but ianal) not to do bait and switches.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Right on. This kind of thing keeps happening. Fortunately, HN and other communities have a surprisingly sharp eye for these lies and can generally be relied upon to call them out, but people still try it on. Here's another example: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40 https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40
sbauch 6y ago
I don't think we've intentionally made false statements nor committed any fraud. But we appreciate the feedback, we'll review as a team and see what sort of decision we can make that will maintain source availability without upsetting folks who allow OSI to define "open source". We made some mistakes, we're very early, and we were hoping to have a (constructive) conversation around licensing and sustainable open source.

whoknew1122 6y ago

> "We do think Osso is open source by common understanding and view the BSL as a fair model that places no restrictions on good actors - the license is intended to protect us from copycats profiting off our work, while allowing anyone that needs to integrate SAML into an app they’re building free reign." The common understanding of open source is that source code is available, redistribution free, and derivative works are allowed. MariaDB specifically states that BSL isn't open source: > "We have not certified BSL as complying to the Open Source Definition by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). However, all source code is available from the start and most of the OSI criteria are met. As long as the software is used within the usage limitations, it’s free to use at no cost." Open source = no usage limitations.

sbauch 6y ago
As I've mentioned or alluded to in other comments, I think "open source" as you describe it is broken and unsustainable, and we're happy to have a constructive conversation about commercially viable open source. But if we can't agree that the definition of "open source", like any word or phrase, can change over time, then I don't think there's much of a constructive conversation to be had. Would you suggest we remove any mention of "open source" from our documentation etc.?
- bawolff 6y ago
  > I think "open source" as you describe it is broken and unsustainable, Then dont claim to use an open source license. Its just recently people have felt foss is commercially viable. For most of its history people believed that foss was not commercially viable. That's why it was considered a radical view. You want to have the cake and eat it too. You're trying to ride the wave of goodwill that open source provides without paying your dues. Yes open source makes it harder to be commercially viable. If it didn't, if it only provided benefits, everything would be open source. > But if we can't agree that the definition of "open source", like any word or phrase, can change over time If i sold nut free chocolate bars, and then someone died of alergic reaction, to which i responded by saying, definitions change over time peanuts arent included in nut-free, would you accept that? Yes, words can in principle change over time - but you can't just change meanings unilateral, especially not as part of a false advertising campaign to mislead users into thinking you are something that you are not.