4 ms·

N8n is not open source and your project is gaslighting its users

34 points by wilsonfiifi 4y ago

phoe-krk 4y ago
Gosh, I got kind of shocked when I saw myself in there (my own comment is the second one in the original thread). I already forgot about the whole affair. Also, [2019]
breton 4y ago
The author of that bug report is active on this site and participated in the discussion of the topic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21191676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21191676. The tone of the bug report is unacceptable and enough to avoid any interaction with its author.
- saurik 4y ago
  FWIW, after looking into this a bit, it seems to me like that issue is only about as harsh as is warranted, calling someone out for pulling a fast one on their users. Certainly, I would be shocked if anyone considered Karl Fogel to be some kind of asshole, and yet he can be found in the comments not only defending the premise but also defending the issue's anger. > I realize that @ddevault's reaction may seems strong, but that's because what you are doing innocently is a tactic that many others have done maliciously. Even if your intent was not malicious, the effect is the same: you are confusing the marketplace needlessly. A bunch of people will get home, open up the bottle, and be surprised to discover lemonade when they very clearly bought "milk".
  - breton 4y ago
    Karl Fogel shows a good example how issues like this should be treated: https://github.com/SparkDevNetwork/Rock/issues/5068 https://github.com/SparkDevNetwork/Rock/issues/5068 Another thing that should not be forgotten is that bug reports are there to contribute to the software. Not for support requests, not for rants, not for personal attacks on the developers, and not to explain them how wrong they are. "This wording exposes you to a lawsuit/might be offensive to certain contributors/is off-putting" would be ok.
    - gray_-_wolf 4y ago
      > Karl Fogel shows a good example how issues like this should be treated Didn't this issue (n8n) actually get resolved favorably (open-source -> source-available) while the "how issues like this should be treated" was resolved (by the maintainer) by basically saying "fuck off, we will keep lying"?
      - janober 4y ago
        Just want to make one thing clear. It did not get favorably resolved because of the way it got communicated, it got resolved favorably despite of it. Btw. Karl Fogel was also part of the n8n open-source discussion and that was for sure also one of the reasons why it got resolved the way it did.
- dreamlifelike 4y ago
  They are a total kook and they make the ecosystem worse by being such an asshole all the time. Just a constant stream of garbage alienating normal people from the industry.
corobo 4y ago
"Gaslighting? Bet it's Drew" I was not actually expecting to be right haha. Dude's far too intense sometimes.
fordsmith 4y ago
Like another commenter I am not surprised by the author. I do not recall where, but I immediately recognized the name from somewhere. The tone and accusations to me appear to be inappropriate. While they may be correct, it is just insane to be so accusational. I find it not productive and in turn makes the community worse off in the first place.
janober 4y ago
Founder of n8n here. For the people that do not have multiple hours to read the whole thread with its almost 378 comments (some of them quite long). It actually resulted in the creation of fair-code (https://faircode.io/ https://faircode.io/) and later the Sustainable Use License. Here a more concise version of the fair-code background: https://blog.n8n.io/fair-code-for-sustainable-open-source-alternatives/ https://blog.n8n.io/fair-code-for-sustainable-open-source-al... and here information about the Sustainable Use License switch: https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/ https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/
- alexvoda 4y ago
  I have read the link to the shor version and this part is precisely the issue: > So I chose the Apache License version 2 with Common Clause as a license, which means that n8n was not an OSI-approved open-source project. > When I launched n8n, I called it “open-source” (note the quotation marks), and everywhere I mentioned that it uses Apache License version 2 with Common Clause, to make it clear. You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source". When it comes to monetizing projects by offering them as a service, I would much prefer the BSL shared-source approach that automatically transitions into a true open source license after a fixed ammount of time instead of an OSI licence tainted with a CC so it is no longer OSI aprooved, neither in spirit nor in writing. A CC tainted licence si no longer open and no longer free as in freedom respecting. And without a fallback to an open license after a time, it will be tainted forever and therefore useless to the open and free ecosystem.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    The issue however appears to have been corrected, ddevault's issue said the website stated it is open source. The website now states it is source available.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    free software and open source and source available. there is a lot of difference between them and people need to know about it. free software is not restricted to definition by OSI, while open source is. source available is just that. >You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source". open source and free software both

34 points by wilsonfiifi 4y ago

Gosh, I got kind of shocked when I saw myself in there (my own comment is the second one in the original thread). I already forgot about the whole affair. Also, [2019]

breton 4y ago

The author of that bug report is active on this site and participated in the discussion of the topic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21191676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21191676. The tone of the bug report is unacceptable and enough to avoid any interaction with its author.

saurik 4y ago
FWIW, after looking into this a bit, it seems to me like that issue is only about as harsh as is warranted, calling someone out for pulling a fast one on their users. Certainly, I would be shocked if anyone considered Karl Fogel to be some kind of asshole, and yet he can be found in the comments not only defending the premise but also defending the issue's anger. > I realize that @ddevault's reaction may seems strong, but that's because what you are doing innocently is a tactic that many others have done maliciously. Even if your intent was not malicious, the effect is the same: you are confusing the marketplace needlessly. A bunch of people will get home, open up the bottle, and be surprised to discover lemonade when they very clearly bought "milk".
- breton 4y ago
  Karl Fogel shows a good example how issues like this should be treated: https://github.com/SparkDevNetwork/Rock/issues/5068 https://github.com/SparkDevNetwork/Rock/issues/5068 Another thing that should not be forgotten is that bug reports are there to contribute to the software. Not for support requests, not for rants, not for personal attacks on the developers, and not to explain them how wrong they are. "This wording exposes you to a lawsuit/might be offensive to certain contributors/is off-putting" would be ok.
  - gray_-_wolf 4y ago
    > Karl Fogel shows a good example how issues like this should be treated Didn't this issue (n8n) actually get resolved favorably (open-source -> source-available) while the "how issues like this should be treated" was resolved (by the maintainer) by basically saying "fuck off, we will keep lying"?
    - janober 4y ago
      Just want to make one thing clear. It did not get favorably resolved because of the way it got communicated, it got resolved favorably despite of it. Btw. Karl Fogel was also part of the n8n open-source discussion and that was for sure also one of the reasons why it got resolved the way it did.
dreamlifelike 4y ago
They are a total kook and they make the ecosystem worse by being such an asshole all the time. Just a constant stream of garbage alienating normal people from the industry.

corobo 4y ago

"Gaslighting? Bet it's Drew" I was not actually expecting to be right haha. Dude's far too intense sometimes.

fordsmith 4y ago

Like another commenter I am not surprised by the author. I do not recall where, but I immediately recognized the name from somewhere. The tone and accusations to me appear to be inappropriate. While they may be correct, it is just insane to be so accusational. I find it not productive and in turn makes the community worse off in the first place.

janober 4y ago

Founder of n8n here. For the people that do not have multiple hours to read the whole thread with its almost 378 comments (some of them quite long). It actually resulted in the creation of fair-code (https://faircode.io/ https://faircode.io/) and later the Sustainable Use License. Here a more concise version of the fair-code background: https://blog.n8n.io/fair-code-for-sustainable-open-source-alternatives/ https://blog.n8n.io/fair-code-for-sustainable-open-source-al... and here information about the Sustainable Use License switch: https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/ https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/

alexvoda 4y ago
I have read the link to the shor version and this part is precisely the issue: > So I chose the Apache License version 2 with Common Clause as a license, which means that n8n was not an OSI-approved open-source project. > When I launched n8n, I called it “open-source” (note the quotation marks), and everywhere I mentioned that it uses Apache License version 2 with Common Clause, to make it clear. You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source". When it comes to monetizing projects by offering them as a service, I would much prefer the BSL shared-source approach that automatically transitions into a true open source license after a fixed ammount of time instead of an OSI licence tainted with a CC so it is no longer OSI aprooved, neither in spirit nor in writing. A CC tainted licence si no longer open and no longer free as in freedom respecting. And without a fallback to an open license after a time, it will be tainted forever and therefore useless to the open and free ecosystem.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  The issue however appears to have been corrected, ddevault's issue said the website stated it is open source. The website now states it is source available.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  free software and open source and source available. there is a lot of difference between them and people need to know about it. free software is not restricted to definition by OSI, while open source is. source available is just that. >You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source". open source and free software both