8 ms·

Dockerized Nextcloud + Postfix + Dovecot + Strongswan + OpenLDAP + SpamAssassin running on an ARM machine. Sounds mostly alright, although it seems you cannot

Dockerized Nextcloud + Postfix + Dovecot + Strongswan + OpenLDAP + SpamAssassin running on an ARM machine. Sounds mostly alright, although it seems you cannot buy it without the $99/yearly subscription, which makes me wary. Sure, a static IP and domain registration is good, but it ought to be an optional addon.

remram 5y ago
It seems that Nextcloud, Postfix, and Strongswan are copyleft. > You may obtain the complete corresponding source code from us for a period of three years after our last shipment of this product by sending a money order or check for $5 to: <snailmail address> Without being illegal this is rather hostile. But then again they are selling subscriptions to open-source software so I expected something shady.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html It’s perfectly ok to charge for GPL software. Providing the source on a physical medium for a price is reasonable because no one should be forced to run a digital distribution setup and infrastructure just because they build software that derives from GPL pieces. Their customers have a right to receive a copy of the source. But the company is not obliged to host an online accessible version of it. Charging a small amount for a copy of the source is fine. And I will go so far as to say that making demands about access to the source code in a manner beyond what the GPL requires, is actually hurting the adoption of GPL software, not helping it. Why should a company base their work on GPL licensed software if they are going to meet pushback even when they are complying with the letter of the GPL? They might just build something different all together, and with no open source at all. And where does that leave us? Definitely in a worse place.
  - chrisfosterelli 5y ago
    Hypothetically, could one not use this to get around GPL by modifying GPL software and agreeing to make the changes available to others but only at a ridiculous price?
    - azundo 5y ago
      My understanding is that the customers would be allowed to distribute/modify the source at that point though so you're not really getting around the GPL.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - anamexis 5y ago
      No, the GPL covers this case. In the FAQ linked in the parent comment, check out the "High or low fees, and the GNU GPL" section. In particular, section 6(b) of GPLv3: > Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
      - chrisfosterelli 5y ago
        Gotcha, thank you!
  - remram 5y ago
    As I said, it is legal, but strikes me as unnecessarily unfriendly. It is likely that I have unrealistic expectations, but putting their modified source code on some "archived" GitHub or similar would have been easy and free. Looking around at Purism, Pine, and remarkable, they don't make it that easy either, so I guess my complaint shouldn't be directed at Helm specifically. My point is that we're not in 1997 anymore (date this GNU document was written), and thus I cannot believe that mailing disks is the easy way to do this. They are making this deliberately difficult, for both them and their users, by doing this over mail. As for discouraging companies to deal with GPL, I am with you. I think this is a little bit different though, as they are not adding much value on top of the open-source code...
    - piaste 5y ago
      > but putting their modified source code on some "archived" GitHub or similar would have been easy and free. You still need to set up mirroring to keep it up-to-date, and janitor tags so that it matches whatever the customer actually received. Much more importantly, you run the risk of a classic 'whoops I pushed an API key' blunder if your code gets auto-mirrored to a public repo. Writing "if you're a human and you want the source code we'll give it to you" costs them about thirty seconds, satisfies the FSF, and carries zero risks.
      - prepend 5y ago
        > Much more importantly, you run the risk of a classic 'whoops I pushed an API key' blunder if your code gets auto-mirrored to a public repo. Thousands of competent projects and millions of incompetent projects figured it out. This is not a reason to distribute source code digitally. Any use of this reasoning just makes the user seem stupid and unable to reduce the risk on this trivial problem.
  - mjg59 5y ago
    > Their customers have a right to receive a copy of the source. But the company is not obliged to host an online accessible version of it. While true, this is misleading - if distributing under the "Written offer" term (rather than including the source code alongside the binaries), everyone has a right to receive a copy of the source.
    - smitop 5y ago
      They put a offer to distribute the source code on their legal page: https://orders.thehelm.com/pages/legal#open-source https://orders.thehelm.com/pages/legal#open-source: "You may request a copy of the source by e-mailing: support@thehelm.com with "Source for Helm Personal Server" in the subject line. This offer is valid to anyone in receipt of this information". I emailed asking to plz gimme teh codez, let's see what I get!
  - dmurray 5y ago
    Do the customers have the right to republish the source? Under the GPL (I checked GPLv3) I don't think they do, but this section (my emphasis) is unclear to me: > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways... Is "under the terms of this License" a clarifying clause that narrows down exactly which "Corresponding Source" we are talking about? That doesn't seem necessary given that "Corresponding Source" is already well defined. Alternatively, does it mean that you must convey the Corresponding Source and grant a GPLv3 license to the conveyees for that source? If so, it could be written more clearly. If my second interpretation is correct, surely it doesn't matter much that the company has a slightly user-unfriendly policy to providing their source code - someone will just mirror the code on Github anyway.
    - mixedCase 5y ago
      > Do the customers have the right to republish the source? The GPL definitely allows you this. What you are given is code that is as GPL as the one they originally got, which covers free distribution. This is the main mechanism that serves the purpose of the GPL.
      - dmurray 5y ago
        Can you explain how that's expressed in the GPL? Is it the section I asked about, so the GPL's "convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License" is your "[source] code that is as GPL as the [object code] they originally got"? Alternatively, maybe it's section 4 > You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium Which is a bit strange, because it's granting you a licence on something (the source code) you haven't necessarily actually got yet, so normally this grant of license would live with the IP it actually applies to. But I understand why it's necessary for the GPL to work in a more complicated way than that, because its purpose is to be viral and to bind the recipient to granting the same license when he distributes modified versions.
        5y ago
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Then why isn’t it okay for companies to just hide behind a “nominal legal fee” of $100k to release the source?
    - VanTheBrand 5y ago
      Because that’s baldly unreasonable
    - detaro 5y ago
      Because the GPL forbids that.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
  - andrewaylett 5y ago
    Strong agree, but I still think they might be missing a trick. Speaking purely personally, despite not currently being in the business of physically-distributing GPL'd object code: put a copy of the corresponding source inside the product. Storage is sufficiently cheap nowadays that this isn't nearly as onerous as it used to be. For bonus points, bootstrap the image then use it to build itself from its included sources for distribution.
lamontcg 5y ago
It might be interesting to produce seriously cut down reimplementations of those utilities for purely home use. Similar to how a home router/switch/NAS doesn't need anywhere near the same number of options and possible misconfigurations and code that isn't helping you at all. (I'm skipping past all the issues with this particular unit by this particular company to the point that this is a good idea and I'd be nice to see a lot more options in this space along with less complexity...)
allset_ 5y ago
The required subscription also means it's useless if they go out of business.
- xvector 5y ago
  That's one of the biggest problems with subscription services. My favorite band's album was pulled from Spotify. Wouldn't have been a concern if I had set up Lidarr on my NAS.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    Streaming is great for music discovery but storage is cheap enough I keep all my favorite music on my phone.
    - ale42 5y ago
      Same for me. I prefer buying FLACs (or actual CDs) of the music I want to have and keep it on my devices, so there's no future risk of losing it (I do have backup). Plus, streaming requires a working connection, uses more energy, etc... so as you say, it's (very) good for discovery, but has many downsides too. And actually, I think that in many cases piracy happens because it's the easiest option, not because people wouldn't be willing to pay. But this is a bit off topic ;)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- not_exactly__ 5y ago
  Yes. But it’s also useless if they go out of business period. I know, I know, opensource it in the event of bankruptcy and continue receiving security updates and what not. But when as that ever actually panned out? Tbh, I don’t know why subscriptions get such a bad rap on HN. recurring revenue (ie subscription) is actually one of the best tool we have for ensuring the products/services we depend on don’t go under.
  - 5y ago
gsreenivas 5y ago
Hi there - co-founder/CEO of Helm here. We don't make the subscription optional at this time because the overwhelming majority of people on the Internet do not have a static IP address with a corresponding PTR record, which is required if you want to have deliverable email. There are other ways to handle domain registration, DNS and backups on your own, but we believe the subscription is a pretty great value for the convenience it provides.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  How do you manage the spam reputation of the IP addresses you use for mail delivery when some of your customers may be sending spam?
  - gsreenivas 5y ago
    We have relationships with key ESPs and email security providers to help with managing reputation/deliverability issues. There are much cheaper ways to send spam effectively than using a Helm so we haven't seen real issues around this.
    - dsr_ 5y ago
      The problem is not that spammers will buy your boxes and subscriptions and ISP connections in order to spam. The problem is that spammers will get into your customers' boxes and use them to spam.
- noncoml 5y ago
  I love your idea and execution. But requiring yearly subscription is defeating the purpose of "Break away from big tech" as I am now tied to your company instead of big tech. What's the point in this?
  - gsreenivas 5y ago
    You can see elsewhere where I discuss what the subscription provides. I think there's a huge difference between subscribing to companies that share customer values around privacy and security vs being at the mercy of companies looking to extract as much value from your data as possible.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eemil 5y ago
To be fair, the subscription also means that the company is more likely to stay around and keep their products working. Given that your paying Helm to handle all the PITA aspects of home servers, it seems reasonable to me. This is coming from someone who runs their own home infra in proxmox. My only concern is the lack of offline backups. You should be able to backup to an external hard drive, and decrypt these backups (e.g. for migration to a "real" server) completely offline, without depending on support.

remram 5y ago

It seems that Nextcloud, Postfix, and Strongswan are copyleft. > You may obtain the complete corresponding source code from us for a period of three years after our last shipment of this product by sending a money order or check for $5 to: <snailmail address> Without being illegal this is rather hostile. But then again they are selling subscriptions to open-source software so I expected something shady.

codetrotter 5y ago
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html It’s perfectly ok to charge for GPL software. Providing the source on a physical medium for a price is reasonable because no one should be forced to run a digital distribution setup and infrastructure just because they build software that derives from GPL pieces. Their customers have a right to receive a copy of the source. But the company is not obliged to host an online accessible version of it. Charging a small amount for a copy of the source is fine. And I will go so far as to say that making demands about access to the source code in a manner beyond what the GPL requires, is actually hurting the adoption of GPL software, not helping it. Why should a company base their work on GPL licensed software if they are going to meet pushback even when they are complying with the letter of the GPL? They might just build something different all together, and with no open source at all. And where does that leave us? Definitely in a worse place.
- chrisfosterelli 5y ago
  Hypothetically, could one not use this to get around GPL by modifying GPL software and agreeing to make the changes available to others but only at a ridiculous price?
  - azundo 5y ago
    My understanding is that the customers would be allowed to distribute/modify the source at that point though so you're not really getting around the GPL.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - anamexis 5y ago
    No, the GPL covers this case. In the FAQ linked in the parent comment, check out the "High or low fees, and the GNU GPL" section. In particular, section 6(b) of GPLv3: > Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
    - chrisfosterelli 5y ago
      Gotcha, thank you!
- remram 5y ago
  As I said, it is legal, but strikes me as unnecessarily unfriendly. It is likely that I have unrealistic expectations, but putting their modified source code on some "archived" GitHub or similar would have been easy and free. Looking around at Purism, Pine, and remarkable, they don't make it that easy either, so I guess my complaint shouldn't be directed at Helm specifically. My point is that we're not in 1997 anymore (date this GNU document was written), and thus I cannot believe that mailing disks is the easy way to do this. They are making this deliberately difficult, for both them and their users, by doing this over mail. As for discouraging companies to deal with GPL, I am with you. I think this is a little bit different though, as they are not adding much value on top of the open-source code...
  - piaste 5y ago
    > but putting their modified source code on some "archived" GitHub or similar would have been easy and free. You still need to set up mirroring to keep it up-to-date, and janitor tags so that it matches whatever the customer actually received. Much more importantly, you run the risk of a classic 'whoops I pushed an API key' blunder if your code gets auto-mirrored to a public repo. Writing "if you're a human and you want the source code we'll give it to you" costs them about thirty seconds, satisfies the FSF, and carries zero risks.
    - prepend 5y ago
      > Much more importantly, you run the risk of a classic 'whoops I pushed an API key' blunder if your code gets auto-mirrored to a public repo. Thousands of competent projects and millions of incompetent projects figured it out. This is not a reason to distribute source code digitally. Any use of this reasoning just makes the user seem stupid and unable to reduce the risk on this trivial problem.
- mjg59 5y ago
  > Their customers have a right to receive a copy of the source. But the company is not obliged to host an online accessible version of it. While true, this is misleading - if distributing under the "Written offer" term (rather than including the source code alongside the binaries), everyone has a right to receive a copy of the source.
  - smitop 5y ago
    They put a offer to distribute the source code on their legal page: https://orders.thehelm.com/pages/legal#open-source https://orders.thehelm.com/pages/legal#open-source: "You may request a copy of the source by e-mailing: support@thehelm.com with "Source for Helm Personal Server" in the subject line. This offer is valid to anyone in receipt of this information". I emailed asking to plz gimme teh codez, let's see what I get!
- dmurray 5y ago
  Do the customers have the right to republish the source? Under the GPL (I checked GPLv3) I don't think they do, but this section (my emphasis) is unclear to me: > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways... Is "under the terms of this License" a clarifying clause that narrows down exactly which "Corresponding Source" we are talking about? That doesn't seem necessary given that "Corresponding Source" is already well defined. Alternatively, does it mean that you must convey the Corresponding Source and grant a GPLv3 license to the conveyees for that source? If so, it could be written more clearly. If my second interpretation is correct, surely it doesn't matter much that the company has a slightly user-unfriendly policy to providing their source code - someone will just mirror the code on Github anyway.
  - mixedCase 5y ago
    > Do the customers have the right to republish the source? The GPL definitely allows you this. What you are given is code that is as GPL as the one they originally got, which covers free distribution. This is the main mechanism that serves the purpose of the GPL.
    - dmurray 5y ago
      Can you explain how that's expressed in the GPL? Is it the section I asked about, so the GPL's "convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License" is your "[source] code that is as GPL as the [object code] they originally got"? Alternatively, maybe it's section 4 > You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium Which is a bit strange, because it's granting you a licence on something (the source code) you haven't necessarily actually got yet, so normally this grant of license would live with the IP it actually applies to. But I understand why it's necessary for the GPL to work in a more complicated way than that, because its purpose is to be viral and to bind the recipient to granting the same license when he distributes modified versions.
      - 5y ago
- kortilla 5y ago
  Then why isn’t it okay for companies to just hide behind a “nominal legal fee” of $100k to release the source?
  - VanTheBrand 5y ago
    Because that’s baldly unreasonable
  - detaro 5y ago
    Because the GPL forbids that.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
- andrewaylett 5y ago
  Strong agree, but I still think they might be missing a trick. Speaking purely personally, despite not currently being in the business of physically-distributing GPL'd object code: put a copy of the corresponding source inside the product. Storage is sufficiently cheap nowadays that this isn't nearly as onerous as it used to be. For bonus points, bootstrap the image then use it to build itself from its included sources for distribution.

lamontcg 5y ago

It might be interesting to produce seriously cut down reimplementations of those utilities for purely home use. Similar to how a home router/switch/NAS doesn't need anywhere near the same number of options and possible misconfigurations and code that isn't helping you at all. (I'm skipping past all the issues with this particular unit by this particular company to the point that this is a good idea and I'd be nice to see a lot more options in this space along with less complexity...)

allset_ 5y ago

The required subscription also means it's useless if they go out of business.

xvector 5y ago
That's one of the biggest problems with subscription services. My favorite band's album was pulled from Spotify. Wouldn't have been a concern if I had set up Lidarr on my NAS.
- Causality1 5y ago
  Streaming is great for music discovery but storage is cheap enough I keep all my favorite music on my phone.
  - ale42 5y ago
    Same for me. I prefer buying FLACs (or actual CDs) of the music I want to have and keep it on my devices, so there's no future risk of losing it (I do have backup). Plus, streaming requires a working connection, uses more energy, etc... so as you say, it's (very) good for discovery, but has many downsides too. And actually, I think that in many cases piracy happens because it's the easiest option, not because people wouldn't be willing to pay. But this is a bit off topic ;)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
not_exactly__ 5y ago
Yes. But it’s also useless if they go out of business period. I know, I know, opensource it in the event of bankruptcy and continue receiving security updates and what not. But when as that ever actually panned out? Tbh, I don’t know why subscriptions get such a bad rap on HN. recurring revenue (ie subscription) is actually one of the best tool we have for ensuring the products/services we depend on don’t go under.
- 5y ago

gsreenivas 5y ago

Hi there - co-founder/CEO of Helm here. We don't make the subscription optional at this time because the overwhelming majority of people on the Internet do not have a static IP address with a corresponding PTR record, which is required if you want to have deliverable email. There are other ways to handle domain registration, DNS and backups on your own, but we believe the subscription is a pretty great value for the convenience it provides.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
How do you manage the spam reputation of the IP addresses you use for mail delivery when some of your customers may be sending spam?
- gsreenivas 5y ago
  We have relationships with key ESPs and email security providers to help with managing reputation/deliverability issues. There are much cheaper ways to send spam effectively than using a Helm so we haven't seen real issues around this.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    The problem is not that spammers will buy your boxes and subscriptions and ISP connections in order to spam. The problem is that spammers will get into your customers' boxes and use them to spam.
noncoml 5y ago
I love your idea and execution. But requiring yearly subscription is defeating the purpose of "Break away from big tech" as I am now tied to your company instead of big tech. What's the point in this?
- gsreenivas 5y ago
  You can see elsewhere where I discuss what the subscription provides. I think there's a huge difference between subscribing to companies that share customer values around privacy and security vs being at the mercy of companies looking to extract as much value from your data as possible.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

eemil 5y ago

To be fair, the subscription also means that the company is more likely to stay around and keep their products working. Given that your paying Helm to handle all the PITA aspects of home servers, it seems reasonable to me. This is coming from someone who runs their own home infra in proxmox. My only concern is the lack of offline backups. You should be able to backup to an external hard drive, and decrypt these backups (e.g. for migration to a "real" server) completely offline, without depending on support.