5 ms·

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 everyon

by 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.
  - tedivm 3y ago
    There are a lot of companies that support open source (Github has given away far more than you have, other companies sponsor employees to work on software directly, etc etc), you aren't special just because you claim that you're an open source company. It's not the BSL that gives you the ability to donate money, it's the fact that you sell a profitable product. You could sell a proftable product with a closed source license, or you could call your license shared source, and still donate money. That being said, I think this is the first time I've seen someone at Sentry openly admit that you are trying to change the overall definition of open source and I do thank you for at least admitting it. If your end goal is to exclude commercial reuse from the open source definition then my theory about embrace/extend/extinguish seems to be as accurate as I thought.

by zeeg 3y ago

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.
- tedivm 3y ago
  There are a lot of companies that support open source (Github has given away far more than you have, other companies sponsor employees to work on software directly, etc etc), you aren't special just because you claim that you're an open source company. It's not the BSL that gives you the ability to donate money, it's the fact that you sell a profitable product. You could sell a proftable product with a closed source license, or you could call your license shared source, and still donate money. That being said, I think this is the first time I've seen someone at Sentry openly admit that you are trying to change the overall definition of open source and I do thank you for at least admitting it. If your end goal is to exclude commercial reuse from the open source definition then my theory about embrace/extend/extinguish seems to be as accurate as I thought.