40 ms·

Sourcegraph CEO here. Sourcegraph is now 2 separate products: code search and Cody (our code AI). Cody remains open source (Apache 2) in the client/cody* direct

by sqs 3y ago

Sourcegraph CEO here. Sourcegraph is now 2 separate products: code search and Cody (our code AI). Cody remains open source (Apache 2) in the client/cody* directories in the repository, and we're extracting that to a separate 100% OSS repository soon. Our licensing principle remains to charge companies while making tools for individual devs open source. Very few individual devs (or companies) used the limited-feature open-source variant of code search, so we decided to remove it. Usage of Sourcegraph code search was even more skewed toward our official non-OSS build than in other similar situations like Google Chrome vs. Chromium or VS Code vs. VSCodium. Maintaining 2 variants was a burden on our engineering team that had very little benefit for anyone. You can see more explanation at https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/53528#issuecomment-1594967818 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/53528#issu.... The change was announced in the changelog and in a PR (all of our development occurs in public), and we will have a blog post this week after we separate our big monorepo into 2 repos as planned: the 100% OSS repo for Cody and the non-OSS repo for code search. You can still use Sourcegraph code search for free on public code at https://sourcegraph.com https://sourcegraph.com and on our self-hosted free tier on private code (which means individual devs can still run Sourcegraph code search 100% for free). Customers are not affected at all.

sqs 3y ago
Also, I appreciate all the comments here and find them fair and thoughtful, including the critical stuff. You can join our Discord at https://discord.gg/rDPqBejz93 https://discord.gg/rDPqBejz93 to chat more after this goes off the HN frontpage. And if anyone wants to chat with me directly to share feedback or complaints, let me know (and we can share the recording publicly if you're OK with it).
CAP_NET_ADMIN 3y ago
Sourcegraph only provided non-OSS images and the build process was difficult and broken for a long time, the application itself was frequently broken in OSS version as well, searching issues for a few minutes brings up quite a few results. [1] [2] [3] [4] It's no wonder, that the usage of OSS version was pretty low, when few were able to build it and even if they managed that, the resulting application was broken every few releases. Both VS Code and Chromium are easy to build, due to their nature and popularity, they are available prebuilt from many sources. I would install "unofficial" Chromium build from my distribution's repository, I wouldn't keep my code in unofficial Sourcegraph build from some random person on Github. Comparing them is rather unfair, but there's another issue that stopped OSS adoption. For a long time, official Sourcegraph Docker image came with a 10 seat free license, which suited many people and they weren't looking for alternatives like OSS build. I would argue that announcing license change and closing of your product as a small block in change log file or when someone mentions the problem in Github Issues is not adequate for such a change. Not using open-first principles, restricting the product by using enterprise only plugins, which others mentioned under this post, not providing open source builds and changing license without preceding announcement, while previously using open source terminology for some feel-good free marketing leaves a bitter taste. Especially with so many companies doing this right now due to interest rates. https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/43231 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/43231 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/43203 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/43203 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/6790 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/6790 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/6783 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/6783
- smarx007 3y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. I am using the Homebrew version of Sourcegraph, which I presume to be quite dead [1]. I do this because there is no packaged version of the Sourcegraph OSS. I would happily use the OSS version instead otherwise. [1]: https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/discussions/54589 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/discussions/54589
- medellin 3y ago
  This is exactly my experience with SourceGraph.
- xenago 3y ago
  Right. A license change like this being done in such a silent manner would lead me to drop usage of this product if I wasn't already avoiding it due to their dubious non-foss principles.
- nicolas_17 3y ago
  "We made the OSS version intentionally bad and broken, and we're now discontinuing it because people didn't use it".
linuxdude314 3y ago
Announcing a major change like this in a PR screams disregard for your users. Are you sure this isn’t just a way for you to crack down on license abuse?
- sourcegrift 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - smarx007 3y ago
    It looks like langserver.org they maintain is indeed serving the right content and the repo accepts PRs. What did Sourcegraph do wrong here?
    - sourcegrift 3y ago
      They have no relationship with LSP to begin with.
      - smarx007 3y ago
        How do you know? Quick search reveals https://github.com/sourcegraph?q=Lsp&type=all&language=&sort= https://github.com/sourcegraph?q=Lsp&type=all&language=&sort... One of their employees maintains a Zig LSP https://youtu.be/h_7o3yroYy4 https://youtu.be/h_7o3yroYy4
  - jdorfman 3y ago
    There is no squatting happening. I personally merge PRs as soon as they come in.
inglor 3y ago
Great straightforward non apologetic answer props. Refreshing compared to what we often get here nowadays and reminiscent of how ceos used to reply here. (I Don like the news itself obviously but the delivery was good)
xenago 3y ago
> charge companies while making tools for individual devs open source Stop using the term Open Source. It's not open source if you apply restrictions like this, it's pretty easy to see that you're being disingenuous. These licenses are not OSI approved.
- grayhatter 3y ago
  You seem to be confused about the common meaning of open source. Open Source only means the source code is available. It doesn't mean it's license or TOS is also open. That's why the acronyms FOSS and FLOSS exist as well.
  - altairprime 3y ago
    “Open Source” is a proper noun defined by OSI, not to be confused with the general phrase “open source” which predates OSI. You use both interchangeably in your reply, which is invalid (apples/oranges). Please be more specific: do you mean the OSI definition or the pre-OSI colloquialism?
  - reedciccio 3y ago
    Open Source has a very clear meaning in the context of IT, understood by developers and lawyers, judges and policy makers alike: it means that the code is distributed with a license approved by the Open Source Initiative.
    - rat9988 3y ago
      Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one.
      - bryant 3y ago
        > Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one. It practically is, and they've done a good job of gathering the relevant citations to make that point. https://opensource.org/authority/ https://opensource.org/authority/ If you're passionately against this, feel free to make the relevant edit here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio... (but you may have to have a litany of citations to justify why the OSI definition is not a de facto standard if you want it to stick).
hv42 3y ago
In case someone is wondering how to search local repositories with sourcegraph, see https://docs.sourcegraph.com/admin/external_service/src_serve_git#docker https://docs.sourcegraph.com/admin/external_service/src_serv... and https://docs.sourcegraph.com/admin/deploy/docker-single-container https://docs.sourcegraph.com/admin/deploy/docker-single-cont... docker run --add-host=host.docker.internal:host-gateway --publish 7080:7080 --publish 127.0.0.1:3370:3370 --rm --volume ~/.sourcegraph/config:/etc/sourcegraph --volume ~/.sourcegraph/data:/var/opt/sourcegraph sourcegraph/server:5.1.2 docker run --rm=true --publish 3434:3434 --volume $PWD:/data/repos:ro sourcegraph/src-cli:latest serve-git /data/repos
jwmcglynn 3y ago
I am one of the few people who used the open source version and really liked it, and I'm disappointed by the changes. The challenge I had with Sourcegraph is that it's out of reach of developers working on personal projects. There isn't a hosted plan, and for my projects I can't easily open source them due to my employer. I was really excited when the Sourcegraph App was released, since it allowed me to give Sourcegraph a try on my project without going through the complex self-hosted setup. I went as far as getting scip-clang working with my Bazel-based project, and then tried out the docker-compose setup on my home lab. Now that code search was removed from the app, and this change, I'm concerned that I won't be able to use Sourcegraph for my personal projects in the future. This is a missed opportunity. I think individual developers using products for personal projects are powerful advocates, since those developers may convince their employer to purchase the product. If I could I'd gladly pay, but I'm just one person and can't justify $5k/year.
- beyang 3y ago
  Hi there, Sourcegraph CTO here. Code search remains free for individual devs, and I hope you'll continue using us for your projects! https://about.sourcegraph.com/code-search/pricing https://about.sourcegraph.com/code-search/pricing We have lots to reflect on given the feedback here on HN. We were honestly a bit blindsided by the number of people who appear to be using open source Sourcegraph, or who really wanted to use it but found the process too difficult. Part of this is because we had a zero telemetry policy for the open source distribution. Perhaps that was a mistake in hindsight, but introducing telemetry there would've been another can of worms! Now that the usage is more visible, it's actually kicked off a lively internal discussion. We're going to take some time to gauge the size of the user community and figure how we can best support it. Aside from individual use being free (still the case) and making deployment more straightforward (through something like code search in App), are there other things we can do to make it easier to adopt? Sorry about the confusion here, we should have handled this better. But the silver lining is we realized there were a lot of users of Sourcegraph that we didn't know about and we're now discussing how best to engage and support you all. I do hope you'll take the chance to pop into our Discord and say hello and continue with feedback that can help us make the best decisions for our users.
ynx 3y ago
For what it's worth, I'd advocated to adopt SourceGraph at work for a long time but the open-source version being impossible to deploy essentially blocked us from ever considering it. I don't doubt that your perception of the OSS version's lack of success is accurate, and it is definitely easier to close off the source, but at the same time the outcome of this is that one funnel into it is closing with the calculation that the effort spent to keep that funnel open wasn't worth the people coming in through it. The other possibility, and one that I subscribe to (not that it isn't self-serving) is that the funnel was never open enough to see success in the first place.
bilalq 3y ago
Do you see any potential trademark conflicts you may run into against Google due to Codey[0]? I don't know which was announced/branded first, but I imagine a big co like Google is tough to win against even when you're in the right. [0]: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/google-cloud-launches-new-ai-models-opens-generative-ai-studio https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/g...
- sqs 3y ago
  We were first. No, we don’t anticipate any issues.
sensibleduck 3y ago
Are you planning on continuing all development in public, or will you make the code private?
HumanOstrich 3y ago
I asked for an enterprise trial once because my company was seriously considering a purchase, despite not being able to properly evaluate the OSS version. The response was basically "sorry, we're too busy". Your business model is fascinating.
jasonmp85 3y ago
[flagged]

by sqs 3y ago

sqs 3y ago

Also, I appreciate all the comments here and find them fair and thoughtful, including the critical stuff. You can join our Discord at https://discord.gg/rDPqBejz93 https://discord.gg/rDPqBejz93 to chat more after this goes off the HN frontpage. And if anyone wants to chat with me directly to share feedback or complaints, let me know (and we can share the recording publicly if you're OK with it).

CAP_NET_ADMIN 3y ago

Sourcegraph only provided non-OSS images and the build process was difficult and broken for a long time, the application itself was frequently broken in OSS version as well, searching issues for a few minutes brings up quite a few results. [1] [2] [3] [4] It's no wonder, that the usage of OSS version was pretty low, when few were able to build it and even if they managed that, the resulting application was broken every few releases. Both VS Code and Chromium are easy to build, due to their nature and popularity, they are available prebuilt from many sources. I would install "unofficial" Chromium build from my distribution's repository, I wouldn't keep my code in unofficial Sourcegraph build from some random person on Github. Comparing them is rather unfair, but there's another issue that stopped OSS adoption. For a long time, official Sourcegraph Docker image came with a 10 seat free license, which suited many people and they weren't looking for alternatives like OSS build. I would argue that announcing license change and closing of your product as a small block in change log file or when someone mentions the problem in Github Issues is not adequate for such a change. Not using open-first principles, restricting the product by using enterprise only plugins, which others mentioned under this post, not providing open source builds and changing license without preceding announcement, while previously using open source terminology for some feel-good free marketing leaves a bitter taste. Especially with so many companies doing this right now due to interest rates. https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/43231 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/43231 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/43203 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/43203 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/6790 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/6790 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/6783 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/issues/6783

smarx007 3y ago
Exactly my thoughts. I am using the Homebrew version of Sourcegraph, which I presume to be quite dead [1]. I do this because there is no packaged version of the Sourcegraph OSS. I would happily use the OSS version instead otherwise. [1]: https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/discussions/54589 https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/discussions/54589
medellin 3y ago
This is exactly my experience with SourceGraph.
xenago 3y ago
Right. A license change like this being done in such a silent manner would lead me to drop usage of this product if I wasn't already avoiding it due to their dubious non-foss principles.
nicolas_17 3y ago
"We made the OSS version intentionally bad and broken, and we're now discontinuing it because people didn't use it".

linuxdude314 3y ago

Announcing a major change like this in a PR screams disregard for your users. Are you sure this isn’t just a way for you to crack down on license abuse?

sourcegrift 3y ago
[flagged]
- smarx007 3y ago
  It looks like langserver.org they maintain is indeed serving the right content and the repo accepts PRs. What did Sourcegraph do wrong here?
  - sourcegrift 3y ago
    They have no relationship with LSP to begin with.
    - smarx007 3y ago
      How do you know? Quick search reveals https://github.com/sourcegraph?q=Lsp&type=all&language=&sort= https://github.com/sourcegraph?q=Lsp&type=all&language=&sort... One of their employees maintains a Zig LSP https://youtu.be/h_7o3yroYy4 https://youtu.be/h_7o3yroYy4
- jdorfman 3y ago
  There is no squatting happening. I personally merge PRs as soon as they come in.

inglor 3y ago

Great straightforward non apologetic answer props. Refreshing compared to what we often get here nowadays and reminiscent of how ceos used to reply here. (I Don like the news itself obviously but the delivery was good)

xenago 3y ago

> charge companies while making tools for individual devs open source Stop using the term Open Source. It's not open source if you apply restrictions like this, it's pretty easy to see that you're being disingenuous. These licenses are not OSI approved.

grayhatter 3y ago
You seem to be confused about the common meaning of open source. Open Source only means the source code is available. It doesn't mean it's license or TOS is also open. That's why the acronyms FOSS and FLOSS exist as well.
- altairprime 3y ago
  “Open Source” is a proper noun defined by OSI, not to be confused with the general phrase “open source” which predates OSI. You use both interchangeably in your reply, which is invalid (apples/oranges). Please be more specific: do you mean the OSI definition or the pre-OSI colloquialism?
- reedciccio 3y ago
  Open Source has a very clear meaning in the context of IT, understood by developers and lawyers, judges and policy makers alike: it means that the code is distributed with a license approved by the Open Source Initiative.
  - rat9988 3y ago
    Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one.
    - bryant 3y ago
      > Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one. It practically is, and they've done a good job of gathering the relevant citations to make that point. https://opensource.org/authority/ https://opensource.org/authority/ If you're passionately against this, feel free to make the relevant edit here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio... (but you may have to have a litany of citations to justify why the OSI definition is not a de facto standard if you want it to stick).

hv42 3y ago

In case someone is wondering how to search local repositories with sourcegraph, see https://docs.sourcegraph.com/admin/external_service/src_serve_git#docker https://docs.sourcegraph.com/admin/external_service/src_serv... and https://docs.sourcegraph.com/admin/deploy/docker-single-container https://docs.sourcegraph.com/admin/deploy/docker-single-cont... docker run --add-host=host.docker.internal:host-gateway --publish 7080:7080 --publish 127.0.0.1:3370:3370 --rm --volume ~/.sourcegraph/config:/etc/sourcegraph --volume ~/.sourcegraph/data:/var/opt/sourcegraph sourcegraph/server:5.1.2 docker run --rm=true --publish 3434:3434 --volume $PWD:/data/repos:ro sourcegraph/src-cli:latest serve-git /data/repos

jwmcglynn 3y ago

I am one of the few people who used the open source version and really liked it, and I'm disappointed by the changes. The challenge I had with Sourcegraph is that it's out of reach of developers working on personal projects. There isn't a hosted plan, and for my projects I can't easily open source them due to my employer. I was really excited when the Sourcegraph App was released, since it allowed me to give Sourcegraph a try on my project without going through the complex self-hosted setup. I went as far as getting scip-clang working with my Bazel-based project, and then tried out the docker-compose setup on my home lab. Now that code search was removed from the app, and this change, I'm concerned that I won't be able to use Sourcegraph for my personal projects in the future. This is a missed opportunity. I think individual developers using products for personal projects are powerful advocates, since those developers may convince their employer to purchase the product. If I could I'd gladly pay, but I'm just one person and can't justify $5k/year.

beyang 3y ago
Hi there, Sourcegraph CTO here. Code search remains free for individual devs, and I hope you'll continue using us for your projects! https://about.sourcegraph.com/code-search/pricing https://about.sourcegraph.com/code-search/pricing We have lots to reflect on given the feedback here on HN. We were honestly a bit blindsided by the number of people who appear to be using open source Sourcegraph, or who really wanted to use it but found the process too difficult. Part of this is because we had a zero telemetry policy for the open source distribution. Perhaps that was a mistake in hindsight, but introducing telemetry there would've been another can of worms! Now that the usage is more visible, it's actually kicked off a lively internal discussion. We're going to take some time to gauge the size of the user community and figure how we can best support it. Aside from individual use being free (still the case) and making deployment more straightforward (through something like code search in App), are there other things we can do to make it easier to adopt? Sorry about the confusion here, we should have handled this better. But the silver lining is we realized there were a lot of users of Sourcegraph that we didn't know about and we're now discussing how best to engage and support you all. I do hope you'll take the chance to pop into our Discord and say hello and continue with feedback that can help us make the best decisions for our users.

ynx 3y ago

For what it's worth, I'd advocated to adopt SourceGraph at work for a long time but the open-source version being impossible to deploy essentially blocked us from ever considering it. I don't doubt that your perception of the OSS version's lack of success is accurate, and it is definitely easier to close off the source, but at the same time the outcome of this is that one funnel into it is closing with the calculation that the effort spent to keep that funnel open wasn't worth the people coming in through it. The other possibility, and one that I subscribe to (not that it isn't self-serving) is that the funnel was never open enough to see success in the first place.

bilalq 3y ago

Do you see any potential trademark conflicts you may run into against Google due to Codey[0]? I don't know which was announced/branded first, but I imagine a big co like Google is tough to win against even when you're in the right. [0]: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/google-cloud-launches-new-ai-models-opens-generative-ai-studio https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/g...

sqs 3y ago
We were first. No, we don’t anticipate any issues.

sensibleduck 3y ago

Are you planning on continuing all development in public, or will you make the code private?

HumanOstrich 3y ago

I asked for an enterprise trial once because my company was seriously considering a purchase, despite not being able to properly evaluate the OSS version. The response was basically "sorry, we're too busy". Your business model is fascinating.

jasonmp85 3y ago

[flagged]