6 ms·

> BSL is not open source. No, but Apache 2.0 is, which is what we revert to after three years. The better analogy would be, "I've decided to become vegetarian,

> BSL is not open source. No, but Apache 2.0 is, which is what we revert to after three years. The better analogy would be, "I've decided to become vegetarian, starting in three days." But then actually legally guaranteeing that you'll follow through vs. always pushing it off into the future which is what it sounds like with the vegetarian example, I know I wouldn't believe myself if I said that. :D [disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]

whit537 3y ago
And until then you can do whatever you want except build a competing business, and if you're that eager to build a code coverage business then you should just come work with us lol. https://sentry.io/careers/ https://sentry.io/careers/
tedivm 3y ago
Open source has meaning, and you're polluting that meaning. It would be one thing if you were honest about it, but by continuing to call closed source software open you're proving that this isn't just a mistake but is actually maliciousness on your part. Just say "We're making our source public, and after three years our legacy code will automatically become open source". Don't claim you're making something open source, but then have all these nasty hidden caveats. It's dishonest.
- arp242 3y ago
  IMHO it's also dishonest to claim there is "one true definition" of the term "Open Source", when in fact 1) there have been a zillion discussion like this now, which demonstrates this consensus doesn't exist, 2) "Open Source" has seen usage going back to as far as 1985 at the least.[1] All of this is reminds me of the "if people keep misusing your design, then it sucks"[2] story from the other day. If you don't want people to "misuse" [common and obvious adjective] + [common noun] then choose a better term. [1]: https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36939648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36939648
- whit537 3y ago
  Feels like a spirit vs. letter conflict. When we say "Codecov is now Open Source" we sincerely mean it at face value. We think we're embodying the spirit of open source. If the letter doesn't jibe then let's change it together. Also feels like we'd have to take this conversation to a video call or something to make any further progress. [disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]
  - avinassh 3y ago
    I think just changing the title from 'CodeCov is now Open Source' to 'Source code of CodeCov is now available', it conveys the same spirit and meaning, without any misleading parts
  - tedivm 3y ago
    I don't understand how the "head of open source" software can claim that a license which literally begins by saying it is not open source, is in fact open source. You're right gaslighting the community or you're engaging in self delusion.
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    The letter reflects the spirit valued by the community, OSI, and FSF. You are free to choose a different term to reflect a different spirit.
cxr 3y ago
The problem is that your colleagues chose to write, "Codecov is now Open Source". They didn't write, "Codecov will be open source in years 3.417* years". * January 1, 2027

whit537 3y ago

And until then you can do whatever you want except build a competing business, and if you're that eager to build a code coverage business then you should just come work with us lol. https://sentry.io/careers/ https://sentry.io/careers/

tedivm 3y ago

Open source has meaning, and you're polluting that meaning. It would be one thing if you were honest about it, but by continuing to call closed source software open you're proving that this isn't just a mistake but is actually maliciousness on your part. Just say "We're making our source public, and after three years our legacy code will automatically become open source". Don't claim you're making something open source, but then have all these nasty hidden caveats. It's dishonest.

arp242 3y ago
IMHO it's also dishonest to claim there is "one true definition" of the term "Open Source", when in fact 1) there have been a zillion discussion like this now, which demonstrates this consensus doesn't exist, 2) "Open Source" has seen usage going back to as far as 1985 at the least.[1] All of this is reminds me of the "if people keep misusing your design, then it sucks"[2] story from the other day. If you don't want people to "misuse" [common and obvious adjective] + [common noun] then choose a better term. [1]: https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36939648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36939648
whit537 3y ago
Feels like a spirit vs. letter conflict. When we say "Codecov is now Open Source" we sincerely mean it at face value. We think we're embodying the spirit of open source. If the letter doesn't jibe then let's change it together. Also feels like we'd have to take this conversation to a video call or something to make any further progress. [disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]
- avinassh 3y ago
  I think just changing the title from 'CodeCov is now Open Source' to 'Source code of CodeCov is now available', it conveys the same spirit and meaning, without any misleading parts
- tedivm 3y ago
  I don't understand how the "head of open source" software can claim that a license which literally begins by saying it is not open source, is in fact open source. You're right gaslighting the community or you're engaging in self delusion.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  The letter reflects the spirit valued by the community, OSI, and FSF. You are free to choose a different term to reflect a different spirit.

cxr 3y ago

The problem is that your colleagues chose to write, "Codecov is now Open Source". They didn't write, "Codecov will be open source in years 3.417* years". * January 1, 2027