5 ms·

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 be

by 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.
  - pydry 3y ago
    It's the same thing. Theyre angry because they agree with big tech's gatekeeping of open source. You may think it's purely an apolitical question of definition but it's about as apolitical as saying "Crimea is part of Russia".
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      No, it literally is not the same thing, and is literally not about big tech at all. It is in fact very simple: Is the thing you're calling Open Source actually Open Source, or is it not? You don't get to change what words mean because you think they should change, or because your business model isn't compatible with their real meaning but you'd really like to use them anyways.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - cxr 3y ago
      > It's the same thing. Let's see how committed you are to that stance: just have them change it to the proposed wording. Should be no problem, since it's the same thing, right?
the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
I was assuming that writing “us” would be clear about my association. From where I’m standing there is a massive difference between “source available” and BSL with Apache 2. The latter does not require goodwill from us in the future.
- BowBun 3y ago
  Most good-faith commenters put clear statements about their association to what they're defending. Not doing so immediately makes me suspicious.
- azdle 3y ago
  Can I suggest calling it "Eventually-Open Source Software"? > Software that has source code available that automatically becomes open source at some explicitly specified, unchangeable, point in the future.
  - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
    > Can I suggest calling it "Eventually-Open Source Software"? FWIW that's what I call it, but that's not exactly a well known enough term.
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      Eventually open explains itself. And makes anyone not sure what it means aware to find out. It is superior entirely to lying.

by tedivm 3y ago

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.
- pydry 3y ago
  It's the same thing. Theyre angry because they agree with big tech's gatekeeping of open source. You may think it's purely an apolitical question of definition but it's about as apolitical as saying "Crimea is part of Russia".
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    No, it literally is not the same thing, and is literally not about big tech at all. It is in fact very simple: Is the thing you're calling Open Source actually Open Source, or is it not? You don't get to change what words mean because you think they should change, or because your business model isn't compatible with their real meaning but you'd really like to use them anyways.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - cxr 3y ago
    > It's the same thing. Let's see how committed you are to that stance: just have them change it to the proposed wording. Should be no problem, since it's the same thing, right?

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago

I was assuming that writing “us” would be clear about my association. From where I’m standing there is a massive difference between “source available” and BSL with Apache 2. The latter does not require goodwill from us in the future.

BowBun 3y ago
Most good-faith commenters put clear statements about their association to what they're defending. Not doing so immediately makes me suspicious.
azdle 3y ago
Can I suggest calling it "Eventually-Open Source Software"? > Software that has source code available that automatically becomes open source at some explicitly specified, unchangeable, point in the future.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  > Can I suggest calling it "Eventually-Open Source Software"? FWIW that's what I call it, but that's not exactly a well known enough term.
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    Eventually open explains itself. And makes anyone not sure what it means aware to find out. It is superior entirely to lying.