7 ms·

The license chosen [1] (Elastic License 2.0) is one that isn't considered open source by many, due to not being OSD [2] compatible. Were you aware of this befor

The license chosen [1] (Elastic License 2.0) is one that isn't considered open source by many, due to not being OSD [2] compatible. Were you aware of this before marketing as open source and, out of interest, does the license & usage of "open source" come into conversation when going through the YC process? [1] https://github.com/grai-io/grai-core/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/grai-io/grai-core/blob/master/LICENSE [2] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

satvikpendem 3y ago
Indeed, it's "source available" at best, not open source as it limits how other parties can use the software, even if the creators don't like their use.
- ersatz_username 3y ago
  Just to be clear, the only limitation imposed by the license is preventing someone from reselling a cloud hosted copy of the tool. The code is otherwise totally free to use fork / modify / etc...
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    That's great, it's not open source though so you shouldn't call it open source. Call it something else.
ersatz_username 3y ago
We are pretty open to feedback on licensing and have gone back and forth internally because, frankly, we'd rather use a copy-left license. We believe a project like this needs financial backing and a dedicated team driving development along but therein lies the tension. The common monetization paths either feature-lock critical self-hosted capabilities like SSO behind a paywall and/or monetize behind a cloud hosted option. The Elastic license is an attempt to maintain feature parity between the cloud and self-hosted tool while still being protected from something like the big cloud providers ripping the code off altogether. In all seriousness though, we would love to hear suggestions if you think there's a better path.
- ssddanbrown 3y ago
  I personally don't have anything against the license you've chosen, and I respect your right to protect your efforts against usage you don't desire. I just think it's better to avoid using "open source" if going down the ELv2 path, and using something like "source available" or "fair code" instead to prevent confusion in misrepresenting this as, what is commonly considered, open source. If you'd like further detail in regards to why I (and others) think this matters, I've previously written my thoughts up here: https://danb.me/blog/posts/why-open-source-term-is-important/ https://danb.me/blog/posts/why-open-source-term-is-important...
  - ersatz_username 3y ago
    Totally fair and appreciate the (well written) thoughts.
  - jagtstronaut 3y ago
    This question is for my education alone, but since you seem quite passionate I am curious. I just read a super long article about licensing to understand your comment as well as the article you wrote. Under these "source available" licenses, I can still sell the software within some kind of package correct? Like if I create my own PR linter I can use Grai and still sell it? I just can't host grai with some observability and sell it? Or am I misunderstanding?
    - ssddanbrown 3y ago
      Just to be clear for my responses, I am not a legal expert in any way. > Under these "source available" licenses, I can still sell the software within some kind of package correct? Like if I create my own PR linter I can use Grai and still sell it? "Source available" means the source is accessible. Whether you can sell the software depends on the license. In the case of the Elastic License v2 as used here, I believe you could re-sell the works but you cannot re-license and the original limitations will remain which include providing as a hosted/managed service. There are other limitations too, the limitations around license keys functionality could be a significant hindrance depending on specific use and implementation. > I just can't host grai with some observability and sell it? Or am I misunderstanding? That is kind of the most significant limitation, but ultimately you are subject to the detail of all limitations: ~~ >> You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service, where the service provides users with access to any substantial set of the features or functionality of the software. >> You may not move, change, disable, or circumvent the license key functionality in the software, and you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software that is protected by the license key. >> You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the licensor in the software. Any use of the licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law. ~~ Note that there's nothing about selling at all. Also think about how widely that first limitation could cover different types of use-case. And, as touched on above, that second limitation could be used in quite a protective/combative way to make significant parts of the software unusable in re-use.

satvikpendem 3y ago

Indeed, it's "source available" at best, not open source as it limits how other parties can use the software, even if the creators don't like their use.

ersatz_username 3y ago
Just to be clear, the only limitation imposed by the license is preventing someone from reselling a cloud hosted copy of the tool. The code is otherwise totally free to use fork / modify / etc...
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  That's great, it's not open source though so you shouldn't call it open source. Call it something else.

ersatz_username 3y ago

We are pretty open to feedback on licensing and have gone back and forth internally because, frankly, we'd rather use a copy-left license. We believe a project like this needs financial backing and a dedicated team driving development along but therein lies the tension. The common monetization paths either feature-lock critical self-hosted capabilities like SSO behind a paywall and/or monetize behind a cloud hosted option. The Elastic license is an attempt to maintain feature parity between the cloud and self-hosted tool while still being protected from something like the big cloud providers ripping the code off altogether. In all seriousness though, we would love to hear suggestions if you think there's a better path.

ssddanbrown 3y ago
I personally don't have anything against the license you've chosen, and I respect your right to protect your efforts against usage you don't desire. I just think it's better to avoid using "open source" if going down the ELv2 path, and using something like "source available" or "fair code" instead to prevent confusion in misrepresenting this as, what is commonly considered, open source. If you'd like further detail in regards to why I (and others) think this matters, I've previously written my thoughts up here: https://danb.me/blog/posts/why-open-source-term-is-important/ https://danb.me/blog/posts/why-open-source-term-is-important...
- ersatz_username 3y ago
  Totally fair and appreciate the (well written) thoughts.
- jagtstronaut 3y ago
  This question is for my education alone, but since you seem quite passionate I am curious. I just read a super long article about licensing to understand your comment as well as the article you wrote. Under these "source available" licenses, I can still sell the software within some kind of package correct? Like if I create my own PR linter I can use Grai and still sell it? I just can't host grai with some observability and sell it? Or am I misunderstanding?
  - ssddanbrown 3y ago
    Just to be clear for my responses, I am not a legal expert in any way. > Under these "source available" licenses, I can still sell the software within some kind of package correct? Like if I create my own PR linter I can use Grai and still sell it? "Source available" means the source is accessible. Whether you can sell the software depends on the license. In the case of the Elastic License v2 as used here, I believe you could re-sell the works but you cannot re-license and the original limitations will remain which include providing as a hosted/managed service. There are other limitations too, the limitations around license keys functionality could be a significant hindrance depending on specific use and implementation. > I just can't host grai with some observability and sell it? Or am I misunderstanding? That is kind of the most significant limitation, but ultimately you are subject to the detail of all limitations: ~~ >> You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service, where the service provides users with access to any substantial set of the features or functionality of the software. >> You may not move, change, disable, or circumvent the license key functionality in the software, and you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software that is protected by the license key. >> You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the licensor in the software. Any use of the licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law. ~~ Note that there's nothing about selling at all. Also think about how widely that first limitation could cover different types of use-case. And, as touched on above, that second limitation could be used in quite a protective/combative way to make significant parts of the software unusable in re-use.