4 ms·

I think the BSL constitutes as Open Source. I’m obviously biased here as someone working at Sentry but here is my reasoning. If you download source today and ju

I think the BSL constitutes as Open Source. I’m obviously biased here as someone working at Sentry but here is my reasoning. If you download source today and just wait long enough it is 100%, unquestionably Open Source as per OSI Definition. There are projects that only release Open Source licensed code in very irregular intervals and they are still Open Source. BSL is rolling Open Source with delay.

tedivm 3y ago
>BSL is rolling Open Source with delay. .... which means it's not open source. The "irregular interval" companies general release the source at the same time they deliver a new software version. It's not a fair comparison at all, since you can always get the open source code for the software you're running.
mdaniel 3y ago
I'm sure I'm going to regret weighing into this, but the reason your "with delay" means it is not open source in my mind is that: - it would require a fork since there is no way Sentry (the project stewards, not the company) is going to review and merge 5 year old code [I'm aware there's already a pseudo-fork but this bullet is to highlight what _contribution_ means in the context of 5 year old code] - if I'm using Sentry today, and I find a bug or want to submit an improvement that scratches my itch, I donate that work to Sentry the corporation - if corporate raiders continue to appropriate the term Open Source to mean "whatever marketing says we can get away with claiming" then in dilutes the goodwill from companies who really do use Open Source I have an special bitterness in my heart for companies that start out with a FOSS license and then rug pull to a non free license. I will never forgive you nor SourceGraph for that betrayal
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  In practice the first point relates to the second: on many projects you need to accept a CLA which gives the original right holder more permissions. That is entirely separately from BSL or else. That is not a donation. In practical terms most of Sentry at this point is fully Apache 2 licensed. > I have an special bitterness in my heart for companies that start out with a FOSS license and then rug pull to a non free license. I will never forgive you […] for that betrayal BSL is for me personally something I can fully stand behind. I understand others do not and I cannot change that. However I believe we all in the Open Source community need to find better ways to have commercial and Open Source community incentives to align. BSL is the best I personally found so far. It means we can work in the open, don’t need to do things we would not stand behind to protect the business etc. You can today like 10 years ago do what you want with Sentry what you want. > I'm aware there's already a pseudo-fork but this bullet is to highlight what _contribution_ means in the context of 5 year old code The rolling Sentry commits are already ahead of the ancient BSD forks I’m aware of.
cosmojg 3y ago
> I think the BSL constitutes as Open Source. Did you even read the license? Literally the first line of the "Notice" section: "The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license."
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tedivm 3y ago

>BSL is rolling Open Source with delay. .... which means it's not open source. The "irregular interval" companies general release the source at the same time they deliver a new software version. It's not a fair comparison at all, since you can always get the open source code for the software you're running.

mdaniel 3y ago

I'm sure I'm going to regret weighing into this, but the reason your "with delay" means it is not open source in my mind is that: - it would require a fork since there is no way Sentry (the project stewards, not the company) is going to review and merge 5 year old code [I'm aware there's already a pseudo-fork but this bullet is to highlight what _contribution_ means in the context of 5 year old code] - if I'm using Sentry today, and I find a bug or want to submit an improvement that scratches my itch, I donate that work to Sentry the corporation - if corporate raiders continue to appropriate the term Open Source to mean "whatever marketing says we can get away with claiming" then in dilutes the goodwill from companies who really do use Open Source I have an special bitterness in my heart for companies that start out with a FOSS license and then rug pull to a non free license. I will never forgive you nor SourceGraph for that betrayal

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
In practice the first point relates to the second: on many projects you need to accept a CLA which gives the original right holder more permissions. That is entirely separately from BSL or else. That is not a donation. In practical terms most of Sentry at this point is fully Apache 2 licensed. > I have an special bitterness in my heart for companies that start out with a FOSS license and then rug pull to a non free license. I will never forgive you […] for that betrayal BSL is for me personally something I can fully stand behind. I understand others do not and I cannot change that. However I believe we all in the Open Source community need to find better ways to have commercial and Open Source community incentives to align. BSL is the best I personally found so far. It means we can work in the open, don’t need to do things we would not stand behind to protect the business etc. You can today like 10 years ago do what you want with Sentry what you want. > I'm aware there's already a pseudo-fork but this bullet is to highlight what _contribution_ means in the context of 5 year old code The rolling Sentry commits are already ahead of the ancient BSD forks I’m aware of.

cosmojg 3y ago

> I think the BSL constitutes as Open Source. Did you even read the license? Literally the first line of the "Notice" section: "The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license."

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]