6 ms·

I am so freaking sick of companies lying and exploiting open source. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish at it's finest. By calling closed source software open

by tedivm 3y ago

I am so freaking sick of companies lying and exploiting open source. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish at it's finest. By calling closed source software open source they're moving the window and confusing the entire concept of open source. I would have rather see CodeCov stay completely closed than see them pollute and damage the open source community like this. Frankly, this abusive nonsense means I will stop using CodeCov and stop recommending them to anyone- which is what I did when Sentry went closed source as well.

zeeg 3y ago
What’s abusive about it? 80% of Sentrys source code is licensed under Apache-2.0 (and is how Codecov will be in a few years) which is far more than what everyone’s favorite open core companies have done. Is it abusive to stop companies like AWS or GitLab from taking your work and selling it? Is it abusive to try to let as many people as possible use your software? I’ll tell you what’s abusive - people thinking they have the rights to other peoples work unconditionally, or that they can profiteer off it without contributing back.
- tedivm 3y ago
  The abusive part is the lie, especially the lie that is literally trying to change the definition of open source. There are sentry employees in this very thread trying to argue that "BSL is open source". If CodeCov said "We are releasing our software under a shared source model" they would still be accomplishing all of the stuff you're saying (preventing AWS and Gitlab from using their product), but they wouldn't be lying about it. That's the major difference here. The fact that this lie has damage beyond just their company is what's important. If we continue to shift the definition of "open" to include more and more cases of "closed" then the entire concept of open source loses it's meaning. Microsoft tried this in the 90s/2000s, and it's really disappointing to see companies that claim to be promoting open source attempting this today.
  - zeeg 3y ago
    I created the Sentry project, am the CTO, and represent one of the strongest voices in our company for why this opinion of open source must change or open source will continue to be unsustainable. I disagree with your sentiment here, as I see plenty of negative effects from unfunded open source, from low ethics companies, and from proprietary softwares deterrent to progress. BSL is allowing us to give $500,000 to other open source projects this year, in addition to allowing any team in the world to use our software. What other open source company is putting their money where their mouth is? Nothing obligates us to make any of these decisions. We need to evolve our irrational views of idealism and find common ground that allows sustainability if we want open source to thrive.
    - azdle 3y ago
      No one is saying there's anything wrong with releasing your code under the BSL. What's wrong is that you're lying and claiming you're open sourcing your code.
      - tedivm 3y ago
        At this point it's hard not to think that they're purposefully ignoring this. It doesn't matter how many times I say that I don't care about their license, just their messaging, and yet we've got at least three employees from Sentry completely ignoring that and acting as if we don't think they have a right to license their own software. It's a straw man that lets them ignore the actual issue people have.
        ssddanbrown 3y ago
        They've been like this before with Sentry, when I've raised their sketchy use of open source. I have some example queries/responses in this issue: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases/issues/7 https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases/i... The repo readme has other examples of sketchy cases of open source and licensing usage. This aspect (of why not just use a different term) often gets ignored. Sometimes folks say they're using it "to prevent confusion to users since they would have heard about open source" which is always an ironic self-involved viewpoint to see.
the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
> I would have rather see CodeCov stay completely closed than see them pollute and damage the open source community like this. That seems highly irrational. As of today, CodeCov is scheduled for full, OSI compliant Open Source. In a few years people can fully fork and do what they want with it under the Apache 2 license. How is this not an improvement over closed source CodeCov? Sure, Apache 2 straight away would be nicer but in practice that’s really impossible to accommodate in a commercial context. The only alternative I know is where you keep the interesting pieces closed (eg: open core). For most people the BSL restrictions won’t matter and if you find interesting code in Sentry or CodeCov you want under Apache ahead of time, you can always mail us.
- tedivm 3y ago
  You should really disclose that you work for Sentry/CodeCov in your comments about this. Being "scheduled for open source in three years" is not the same as being open source today. Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing. They could just say "shared source" or "source available" and take the exact same actions they're taking, just without misleading people.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing. They are. In no way was I confused about what they are doing when I read this. It's practically speaking open source for everybody with a poison pill for companies like AWS that have successfully charged rents on open source without giving anything back (like elastic search). Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom in order to fund the development of open source appears to make some people extremely angry.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      > Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom appears to make some people extremely angry. That's not why anyone is angry. They're angry because it's labeled "Open Source" in the title, and then turns out to be not actually Open Source.
that_guy_iain 3y ago
It's not closed source. They're source available. Which I would argue is better than both Open and Closed source. It provides the flexibility of open source with the benefit of being supported and maintained by an actual company that has actual resources. There are percentage wise very few open source projects that have full time resources on them. There are so many tools/projects that if you report a bug to them that bug isn't getting fixed and if you create a PR to fix it it's nto getting merged because the maintainer has moved on with their lives and maintain it as a minor tiny hobby with 1-2 hours a month (if that) and there are tons where they've been taken over for vital maintainance only by a hardcore few that maintain lots of tools since the original maintainer has moved on. This annoys me about open source. It feels super unprofessional and normally we only get something that is maintained properly when it's closed source.
- tedivm 3y ago
  You can argue all you want, but it's not Open Source and even you agree about that. Whether "source available" is better or not is an argument I don't really care about- it's just a red herring. The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical.
  - that_guy_iain 3y ago
    > The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical. That is a fair point. It annoys me too.
pydry 3y ago
You're taking an explicitly pro rentier stance here and seeking to shame a business model that actually supports the development of open source. Youre on the side of embrace, extend, extinguish. These licenses exist because rentiers like Amazon and Microsoft are using their hosting market dominance to charge rents on open source and undermining the business model of companies like Elastic Search that actually create it.
- tedivm 3y ago
  Oh please. I am not saying they're required to be open source. I'm not saying they shouldn't be shared source. I'm simply saying they shouldn't lie about being open source. If CodeCov had the exact same license with the exact same restrictions, but didn't lie in their messaging, I wouldn't be commenting about it.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Oh please is exactly what I thought when I read your comment. This is open source. It's entirely within the spirit of the movement. The political imperative to twist the definition comes from tech monopolists, angry at a new wave of licenses that inhibit their ability to profit unhindered. You're getting outraged on their behalf.
    - tedivm 3y ago
      Read the first line of the BSL license- > The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License. The only way you can argue that it's open source is if you're purposefully trying to deceive people.
- mort96 3y ago
  Just don't fucking call your software open source when it's not open source. Don't try to leech off the goodwill people have towards open source by falsely claiming that your software is open source.
slgeorge 3y ago
> I am so freaking sick of companies lying and exploiting open source. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish at it's finest. I don't see how this is 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish'? This license guarantees that the code becomes Free Software at a maximum of 4 years - and in this case they've specified a shorter time period. I'll give you that there are lots of games played in open source, so I understand that feeling of cynicism. But, this actually seems like an attempt to add some nuance to the commercial<-->free divide. The reality is that many 'commercial' OSS companies have to take the open core route because understandably investors expect a return on their money. There are exceptions to this, but they are pretty rare. In fact, there are probably a whole set of SaaS companies that could be open source, but don't do so out of the fear of someone taking their code and 'free riding' them. Finding a way to prefer the entity that sponsors/incubates the code base, while also genuinely allowing a community of contribution around it (not free riding) would be very beneficial in lots of situations. Maybe a better critique would be that this has some similarities to the Trolltech QT approach - but that's a different argument.

by tedivm 3y ago

zeeg 3y ago

What’s abusive about it? 80% of Sentrys source code is licensed under Apache-2.0 (and is how Codecov will be in a few years) which is far more than what everyone’s favorite open core companies have done. Is it abusive to stop companies like AWS or GitLab from taking your work and selling it? Is it abusive to try to let as many people as possible use your software? I’ll tell you what’s abusive - people thinking they have the rights to other peoples work unconditionally, or that they can profiteer off it without contributing back.

tedivm 3y ago
The abusive part is the lie, especially the lie that is literally trying to change the definition of open source. There are sentry employees in this very thread trying to argue that "BSL is open source". If CodeCov said "We are releasing our software under a shared source model" they would still be accomplishing all of the stuff you're saying (preventing AWS and Gitlab from using their product), but they wouldn't be lying about it. That's the major difference here. The fact that this lie has damage beyond just their company is what's important. If we continue to shift the definition of "open" to include more and more cases of "closed" then the entire concept of open source loses it's meaning. Microsoft tried this in the 90s/2000s, and it's really disappointing to see companies that claim to be promoting open source attempting this today.
- zeeg 3y ago
  I created the Sentry project, am the CTO, and represent one of the strongest voices in our company for why this opinion of open source must change or open source will continue to be unsustainable. I disagree with your sentiment here, as I see plenty of negative effects from unfunded open source, from low ethics companies, and from proprietary softwares deterrent to progress. BSL is allowing us to give $500,000 to other open source projects this year, in addition to allowing any team in the world to use our software. What other open source company is putting their money where their mouth is? Nothing obligates us to make any of these decisions. We need to evolve our irrational views of idealism and find common ground that allows sustainability if we want open source to thrive.
  - azdle 3y ago
    No one is saying there's anything wrong with releasing your code under the BSL. What's wrong is that you're lying and claiming you're open sourcing your code.
    - tedivm 3y ago
      At this point it's hard not to think that they're purposefully ignoring this. It doesn't matter how many times I say that I don't care about their license, just their messaging, and yet we've got at least three employees from Sentry completely ignoring that and acting as if we don't think they have a right to license their own software. It's a straw man that lets them ignore the actual issue people have.
      - ssddanbrown 3y ago
        They've been like this before with Sentry, when I've raised their sketchy use of open source. I have some example queries/responses in this issue: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases/issues/7 https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases/i... The repo readme has other examples of sketchy cases of open source and licensing usage. This aspect (of why not just use a different term) often gets ignored. Sometimes folks say they're using it "to prevent confusion to users since they would have heard about open source" which is always an ironic self-involved viewpoint to see.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago

> I would have rather see CodeCov stay completely closed than see them pollute and damage the open source community like this. That seems highly irrational. As of today, CodeCov is scheduled for full, OSI compliant Open Source. In a few years people can fully fork and do what they want with it under the Apache 2 license. How is this not an improvement over closed source CodeCov? Sure, Apache 2 straight away would be nicer but in practice that’s really impossible to accommodate in a commercial context. The only alternative I know is where you keep the interesting pieces closed (eg: open core). For most people the BSL restrictions won’t matter and if you find interesting code in Sentry or CodeCov you want under Apache ahead of time, you can always mail us.

tedivm 3y ago
You should really disclose that you work for Sentry/CodeCov in your comments about this. Being "scheduled for open source in three years" is not the same as being open source today. Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing. They could just say "shared source" or "source available" and take the exact same actions they're taking, just without misleading people.
- pydry 3y ago
  >Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing. They are. In no way was I confused about what they are doing when I read this. It's practically speaking open source for everybody with a poison pill for companies like AWS that have successfully charged rents on open source without giving anything back (like elastic search). Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom in order to fund the development of open source appears to make some people extremely angry.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom appears to make some people extremely angry. That's not why anyone is angry. They're angry because it's labeled "Open Source" in the title, and then turns out to be not actually Open Source.

that_guy_iain 3y ago

It's not closed source. They're source available. Which I would argue is better than both Open and Closed source. It provides the flexibility of open source with the benefit of being supported and maintained by an actual company that has actual resources. There are percentage wise very few open source projects that have full time resources on them. There are so many tools/projects that if you report a bug to them that bug isn't getting fixed and if you create a PR to fix it it's nto getting merged because the maintainer has moved on with their lives and maintain it as a minor tiny hobby with 1-2 hours a month (if that) and there are tons where they've been taken over for vital maintainance only by a hardcore few that maintain lots of tools since the original maintainer has moved on. This annoys me about open source. It feels super unprofessional and normally we only get something that is maintained properly when it's closed source.

tedivm 3y ago
You can argue all you want, but it's not Open Source and even you agree about that. Whether "source available" is better or not is an argument I don't really care about- it's just a red herring. The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  > The issue I have is companies claiming Source Available is the same thing as Open Source. I find that to be completely unethical. That is a fair point. It annoys me too.

pydry 3y ago

You're taking an explicitly pro rentier stance here and seeking to shame a business model that actually supports the development of open source. Youre on the side of embrace, extend, extinguish. These licenses exist because rentiers like Amazon and Microsoft are using their hosting market dominance to charge rents on open source and undermining the business model of companies like Elastic Search that actually create it.

tedivm 3y ago
Oh please. I am not saying they're required to be open source. I'm not saying they shouldn't be shared source. I'm simply saying they shouldn't lie about being open source. If CodeCov had the exact same license with the exact same restrictions, but didn't lie in their messaging, I wouldn't be commenting about it.
- pydry 3y ago
  Oh please is exactly what I thought when I read your comment. This is open source. It's entirely within the spirit of the movement. The political imperative to twist the definition comes from tech monopolists, angry at a new wave of licenses that inhibit their ability to profit unhindered. You're getting outraged on their behalf.
  - tedivm 3y ago
    Read the first line of the BSL license- > The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License. The only way you can argue that it's open source is if you're purposefully trying to deceive people.
mort96 3y ago
Just don't fucking call your software open source when it's not open source. Don't try to leech off the goodwill people have towards open source by falsely claiming that your software is open source.

slgeorge 3y ago

> I am so freaking sick of companies lying and exploiting open source. This is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish at it's finest. I don't see how this is 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish'? This license guarantees that the code becomes Free Software at a maximum of 4 years - and in this case they've specified a shorter time period. I'll give you that there are lots of games played in open source, so I understand that feeling of cynicism. But, this actually seems like an attempt to add some nuance to the commercial<-->free divide. The reality is that many 'commercial' OSS companies have to take the open core route because understandably investors expect a return on their money. There are exceptions to this, but they are pretty rare. In fact, there are probably a whole set of SaaS companies that could be open source, but don't do so out of the fear of someone taking their code and 'free riding' them. Finding a way to prefer the entity that sponsors/incubates the code base, while also genuinely allowing a community of contribution around it (not free riding) would be very beneficial in lots of situations. Maybe a better critique would be that this has some similarities to the Trolltech QT approach - but that's a different argument.