3 ms·

I would value hearing more about the business risk that going BSL was designed to address: https://github.com/earthly/earthly/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.c

I would value hearing more about the business risk that going BSL was designed to address: https://github.com/earthly/earthly/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/earthly/earthly/blob/main/LICENSE the associated PR just says "doing it" without saying why https://github.com/earthly/earthly/pull/730 https://github.com/earthly/earthly/pull/730 I have a very hard time imagining "AWS Infinibuild(R)" that eats the "makefile + dockerfile that builds locally" use case, which is why I was curious to learn more --- Separately, I would value GitHub's license detector gizmo using some of that sweet machine-learning sauce to identify the BSL, since it seems to be the path forward for these situations

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
captn3m0 5y ago
GitHub licensee (the detection gizmo) uses ChooseALicense as the source. They recommend filing a PR there, but BSL doesn’t fit the requirements at https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md#adding-a-license https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/blob/gh-pages/C... https://github.com/licensee/licensee/blob/master/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/licensee/licensee/blob/master/docs/CONTRI...
agbell 5y ago
Hi, We have a blog post discussing the license change here: https://earthly.dev/blog/every-open-core-company-should-be-a-source-available-company/ https://earthly.dev/blog/every-open-core-company-should-be-a...
- mdaniel 5y ago
  Thank you for that; I would suggest putting that link in the PR description (or a comment) since not everyone who is similarly curious will be on a Show HN thread with the authoritative parties I'm not trying to start trouble or get into a massive licensing thread on HN, but I want to point out that 2/5ths of those exemplar links of BSL success are in fact Apache 2.0 licensed, and not just source-available. I believe you that there are (evidently) parts of Kafka which one must pay money for, but my understanding is that the Apache Software Foundation would not tolerate hosting source-available projects on the apache.org domain nor in the apache GitHub organization. I wish you all the best with your project
  - agbell 5y ago
    Makes sense. Kafka is Apache, confluent platform is open core. So I agree the post is a bit confused about that. We can update it and link in the PR. No intention to misrepresent the facts on our parts, just a small team trying to build stuff.
  - vladaionescu 5y ago
    Hi mdaniel - just to clarify the blog post says that Confluent / Kafka follows an open core model. It doesn't claim that Kafka has a source available license. A few notable switches to source available licenses have been named in another part of the blog post though. Hope that makes it clearer.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

captn3m0 5y ago

GitHub licensee (the detection gizmo) uses ChooseALicense as the source. They recommend filing a PR there, but BSL doesn’t fit the requirements at https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md#adding-a-license https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/blob/gh-pages/C... https://github.com/licensee/licensee/blob/master/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/licensee/licensee/blob/master/docs/CONTRI...

agbell 5y ago

Hi, We have a blog post discussing the license change here: https://earthly.dev/blog/every-open-core-company-should-be-a-source-available-company/ https://earthly.dev/blog/every-open-core-company-should-be-a...

mdaniel 5y ago
Thank you for that; I would suggest putting that link in the PR description (or a comment) since not everyone who is similarly curious will be on a Show HN thread with the authoritative parties I'm not trying to start trouble or get into a massive licensing thread on HN, but I want to point out that 2/5ths of those exemplar links of BSL success are in fact Apache 2.0 licensed, and not just source-available. I believe you that there are (evidently) parts of Kafka which one must pay money for, but my understanding is that the Apache Software Foundation would not tolerate hosting source-available projects on the apache.org domain nor in the apache GitHub organization. I wish you all the best with your project
- agbell 5y ago
  Makes sense. Kafka is Apache, confluent platform is open core. So I agree the post is a bit confused about that. We can update it and link in the PR. No intention to misrepresent the facts on our parts, just a small team trying to build stuff.
- vladaionescu 5y ago
  Hi mdaniel - just to clarify the blog post says that Confluent / Kafka follows an open core model. It doesn't claim that Kafka has a source available license. A few notable switches to source available licenses have been named in another part of the blog post though. Hope that makes it clearer.