6 ms·

They should have put that in the README, I'm quite sympathetic towards the delayed-FOSS model, but the source-available had me write it off.

by f_devd 3y ago

that_guy_iain 3y ago
I tried to. Clearly I didn't make it clear enough, I'll make it clearer that it goes to GPL after 3-years.
- f_devd 3y ago
  Ah I see now it's at the end of the QA on OSS, the main confusion is with the initial "No. ... Source-available" Although it is more honest it also made me stop reading, switching around the paragraphs and adding the license it changes to (GPL3) would have fixed the confusion for me.
KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
BSL is still much better than AGPL, which is used by the really slimy companies like Lago (YC funded too, many new YC open core companies are doing this now). https://www.getlago.com/ https://www.getlago.com/ If your main customer base is other SaaS providers, then making the app impossible to host on the same network or customize is essentially a bait-and-switch poison pill.
- CitizenKane 3y ago
  I’m not sure how AGPL would prevent you from hosting on the same network. It’s pretty standard among OSS software companies to prevent Google, Amazon, et al. from swooping in and creating a competitor using their open source code.
- pgt 3y ago
  Why do you consider Lago slimy?
- martypitt 3y ago
  I really struggle with this attitude that companies that make their code available, but don't do it "open enough", are therefore "BadCompanies". Companies are not obligated to make their source code available (excl: copy-left, where they are). Those that do, often choose to do so in a way that balances aiding a community, and growing their business. That's a good thing IMO. Being commercially savvy, and ensuring the company that authors software today, will be here tomorrow, is good for the software, and therefore, for it's community. I don't understand where the sense of entitlement comes from that it's OK to shame/berate/insult a company who publishes their source code, because of the restrictions they elected to impose. Companies like Lago are small startups, who need to pay the staff to author the software. They also created a company to generate profits. Electing to do so under an Open Core model is a good thing - as we get Open Source software as a side-effect. They have no obligation to do so under a permissive license. That they do so under any license should be celebrated, IMO. > many new YC open core companies are doing this now. Great! Long may this continue. Companies that are open-core are beneficial for everyone. Splitting hairs over the license they elect seems ungrateful IMO.
  - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
    > They have no obligation to do so under a permissive license. That they do so under any license should be celebrated, IMO. They are doing it as a growth hack, to ride the publicity of being open source without allowing any of their actual customers to benefit from it. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts or altruism. The class of software they provide are next to useless for non-commercial customers. If they are not open source, they won't get the free attention and eyeballs. It is very much a bait and switch, and they very much deserve to be insulted and dragged through the mud for their bullshit. Don't apologize for their bad behavior, Open Source is not a magic panacea that waives all ethical judgment.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

They should have put that in the README, I'm quite sympathetic towards the delayed-FOSS model, but the source-available had me write it off.

by f_devd 3y ago

They should have put that in the README, I'm quite sympathetic towards the delayed-FOSS model, but the source-available had me write it off.

that_guy_iain 3y ago

I tried to. Clearly I didn't make it clear enough, I'll make it clearer that it goes to GPL after 3-years.

f_devd 3y ago
Ah I see now it's at the end of the QA on OSS, the main confusion is with the initial "No. ... Source-available" Although it is more honest it also made me stop reading, switching around the paragraphs and adding the license it changes to (GPL3) would have fixed the confusion for me.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago

BSL is still much better than AGPL, which is used by the really slimy companies like Lago (YC funded too, many new YC open core companies are doing this now). https://www.getlago.com/ https://www.getlago.com/ If your main customer base is other SaaS providers, then making the app impossible to host on the same network or customize is essentially a bait-and-switch poison pill.

CitizenKane 3y ago
I’m not sure how AGPL would prevent you from hosting on the same network. It’s pretty standard among OSS software companies to prevent Google, Amazon, et al. from swooping in and creating a competitor using their open source code.
pgt 3y ago
Why do you consider Lago slimy?
martypitt 3y ago
I really struggle with this attitude that companies that make their code available, but don't do it "open enough", are therefore "BadCompanies". Companies are not obligated to make their source code available (excl: copy-left, where they are). Those that do, often choose to do so in a way that balances aiding a community, and growing their business. That's a good thing IMO. Being commercially savvy, and ensuring the company that authors software today, will be here tomorrow, is good for the software, and therefore, for it's community. I don't understand where the sense of entitlement comes from that it's OK to shame/berate/insult a company who publishes their source code, because of the restrictions they elected to impose. Companies like Lago are small startups, who need to pay the staff to author the software. They also created a company to generate profits. Electing to do so under an Open Core model is a good thing - as we get Open Source software as a side-effect. They have no obligation to do so under a permissive license. That they do so under any license should be celebrated, IMO. > many new YC open core companies are doing this now. Great! Long may this continue. Companies that are open-core are beneficial for everyone. Splitting hairs over the license they elect seems ungrateful IMO.
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  > They have no obligation to do so under a permissive license. That they do so under any license should be celebrated, IMO. They are doing it as a growth hack, to ride the publicity of being open source without allowing any of their actual customers to benefit from it. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts or altruism. The class of software they provide are next to useless for non-commercial customers. If they are not open source, they won't get the free attention and eyeballs. It is very much a bait and switch, and they very much deserve to be insulted and dragged through the mud for their bullshit. Don't apologize for their bad behavior, Open Source is not a magic panacea that waives all ethical judgment.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]