6 ms·

It defintely needs some documentation! It is closed source proprietary software, so that is one major difference.

by ensignavenger 4y ago

Johnnynator 4y ago
It is Open Source, but under a Non-Free License (PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0).
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  The PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0 is not an Open Source license.
  - Johnnynator 4y ago
    Fair, one can see this as just source available. But still far more permissive than cloudron's license.
    - ensignavenger 4y ago
      Okay, I will admit I am only familiar with Sandstorm from that list :)
    - nullcipher 4y ago
      Cloudron is also source available - https://git.cloudron.io https://git.cloudron.io
  - mayankchhabra 4y ago
    Licensing is a nuanced subject so we've written a detailed post on it. But in short, our license grants you the same rights that come with an open source license, except the right to sell or commercialize Umbrel. Here's our post that explains our licensing in detail: https://blog.getumbrel.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-umbrels-new-license-f9807203a57e https://blog.getumbrel.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about...
    - ensignavenger 4y ago
      Except it denies me the right to purchase support services from the vendor of my choosing. It also denies me the ability to hire a contractor of my choosing to create a derivative of the product or even contribute changes to the product. It further denies me the ability to receive sponsorship from another individual to create a derivative work (This falls under commercializing, but the other two would not be me doing the commercializing). These are all rights I have with Open Source software that is denied by your non-commercial license. Reading your blog post, you seem to not understand Open Source nor do you seem to understand the implications of your own license very well.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - kentonv 4y ago
      No, it's not Open Source. It's a perfectly justifiable decision, but it's not Open Source, nor is it equivalent. Yes, your license means that individual users can make little patches to customize the product to their needs, and even share these customizations with other users. That's great! But the license effectively prohibits borrowing code from your codebase for use in other projects, meaning your code does not become part of the aether of Open Source code that anyone can build upon. That's a very important part of what it means to be "Open Source". It also effectively prevents any large-scale modification or forking effort, since maintaining patches as the underlying codebase evolves is a hard job, and the license prohibits people from funding such effort. If users want timely security updates, they will need to stick close to your version of the codebase. So the lock-in is there. Again, this is all a perfectly justified direction for you to take. I don't blame you at all, and I definitely understand that it's Amazon's fault that we cannot have nice things. But it's not Open Source. On a tangentially-related note, a little tip: You have defined all noncommercial organizations -- including education, public research, and government -- as being permitted users. That may be dangerous. I was the founder of Sandstorm, and these organizations were exactly the ones most interested in paying for our product -- literally the only big sales we ever made were a couple universities, a big research org, and a government. Despite being non-profit, these orgs have lots of money and a need for self-hosting.

It defintely needs some documentation! It is closed source proprietary software, so that is one major difference.

Johnnynator 4y ago

It is Open Source, but under a Non-Free License (PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0).

ensignavenger 4y ago
The PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0 is not an Open Source license.
- Johnnynator 4y ago
  Fair, one can see this as just source available. But still far more permissive than cloudron's license.
  - ensignavenger 4y ago
    Okay, I will admit I am only familiar with Sandstorm from that list :)
  - nullcipher 4y ago
    Cloudron is also source available - https://git.cloudron.io https://git.cloudron.io
- mayankchhabra 4y ago
  Licensing is a nuanced subject so we've written a detailed post on it. But in short, our license grants you the same rights that come with an open source license, except the right to sell or commercialize Umbrel. Here's our post that explains our licensing in detail: https://blog.getumbrel.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-umbrels-new-license-f9807203a57e https://blog.getumbrel.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about...
  - ensignavenger 4y ago
    Except it denies me the right to purchase support services from the vendor of my choosing. It also denies me the ability to hire a contractor of my choosing to create a derivative of the product or even contribute changes to the product. It further denies me the ability to receive sponsorship from another individual to create a derivative work (This falls under commercializing, but the other two would not be me doing the commercializing). These are all rights I have with Open Source software that is denied by your non-commercial license. Reading your blog post, you seem to not understand Open Source nor do you seem to understand the implications of your own license very well.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - kentonv 4y ago
    No, it's not Open Source. It's a perfectly justifiable decision, but it's not Open Source, nor is it equivalent. Yes, your license means that individual users can make little patches to customize the product to their needs, and even share these customizations with other users. That's great! But the license effectively prohibits borrowing code from your codebase for use in other projects, meaning your code does not become part of the aether of Open Source code that anyone can build upon. That's a very important part of what it means to be "Open Source". It also effectively prevents any large-scale modification or forking effort, since maintaining patches as the underlying codebase evolves is a hard job, and the license prohibits people from funding such effort. If users want timely security updates, they will need to stick close to your version of the codebase. So the lock-in is there. Again, this is all a perfectly justified direction for you to take. I don't blame you at all, and I definitely understand that it's Amazon's fault that we cannot have nice things. But it's not Open Source. On a tangentially-related note, a little tip: You have defined all noncommercial organizations -- including education, public research, and government -- as being permitted users. That may be dangerous. I was the founder of Sandstorm, and these organizations were exactly the ones most interested in paying for our product -- literally the only big sales we ever made were a couple universities, a big research org, and a government. Despite being non-profit, these orgs have lots of money and a need for self-hosting.