3 ms·

Oh come on. You are being angry at the wrong target. If you become angry about this technically not being "open source" (by the OSI definition) you are just hel

Oh come on. You are being angry at the wrong target. If you become angry about this technically not being "open source" (by the OSI definition) you are just helping the rent-extracting monopolies in Big Tech to steal more. The OSI definition was accepted due to corporate lobbying and I imagine this probably also includes astroturfing to apply pressure on companies who don't go "all the way" and basically subsidise their competitors for free. This gives me strong ElasticSearch vibes - everyone got mad at Elastic for changing the licence, and no one gave a damn about Amazon building a moat around the technology, profiting massively from it yet leaving the burden of maintenance to Elastic. Anti-disclaimer: I have zero affiliation towards this project or company.

tedivm 3y ago
Sentry is one of the rent extracting companies. They want to extract value from the open source community, including marketing value, without actually being open source.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  How so? You can use it for free without paying rent. You just can't compete with them without paying.
  - zeeg 3y ago
    Not to mention any reasonable competitor is using our FOSS-licensed code to compete against us (such as our symbolification services). There is nuance and people don’t care about that. We will keep shipping.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  Where is the "extracting value" part? If you mean "calling their product open source while you think it is actually not" that is a really weak justification. By extracting value I literally mean using open source code as a SaaS model then not contributing back anything. Getting angry over names is not seeing the forest from the trees...
  - ewan-mclean 3y ago
    So in your view, what is the opposite of "closed source"? Is your definition the one that 99% of English speaking humans would agree with? Why should the opposite of "closed closed source" be one groups ideological checklist, that's really an offshoot of "free software", a radical, anti-property ideology that is generally not accepted - and thus the GPL licenses are generally unpopular. Why does the OSI bother to maintain a trademark on "OSI Approved License"? Isn't that hypocritical? If not, why not? In my view, the OSI does have value, and "OSI Approved Licenses" are useful to know about, just like "FSF Approved Licenses" are good to know about... But they should not pretend to own language and have trademark on "Open Source" when the USPTO denied them a trademark: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php/ https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... Also, there is extensive documented "prior to 1998" use of the term "open-source" meaning exactly "the opposite of closed-source", rather than someones ideological checklist: https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage
    - Pannoniae 3y ago
      Btw I think you are replying to the wrong person, from your post it looks like you wanted to reply to my parent.
ewan-mclean 3y ago
> I imagine this probably also includes astroturfing to apply pressure on companies who don't go "all the way" and basically subsidise their competitors for free. I think you are exactly correct. It's deeply disturbing that the OSI out of one side of their mouth says "indie developers, you should forgo any right to your own software or not truly open-source" and out of the other side of their mouth collects donations from giant internet monopolies that freeload... MIT/BSD/Public Domain licenses long pre-date the OSI. The FSF is it's own thing... What's even the point of the OSI beyond trying to pressure developers to drop their creations into the public domain to be stolen?

tedivm 3y ago

Sentry is one of the rent extracting companies. They want to extract value from the open source community, including marketing value, without actually being open source.

that_guy_iain 3y ago
How so? You can use it for free without paying rent. You just can't compete with them without paying.
- zeeg 3y ago
  Not to mention any reasonable competitor is using our FOSS-licensed code to compete against us (such as our symbolification services). There is nuance and people don’t care about that. We will keep shipping.
Pannoniae 3y ago
Where is the "extracting value" part? If you mean "calling their product open source while you think it is actually not" that is a really weak justification. By extracting value I literally mean using open source code as a SaaS model then not contributing back anything. Getting angry over names is not seeing the forest from the trees...
- ewan-mclean 3y ago
  So in your view, what is the opposite of "closed source"? Is your definition the one that 99% of English speaking humans would agree with? Why should the opposite of "closed closed source" be one groups ideological checklist, that's really an offshoot of "free software", a radical, anti-property ideology that is generally not accepted - and thus the GPL licenses are generally unpopular. Why does the OSI bother to maintain a trademark on "OSI Approved License"? Isn't that hypocritical? If not, why not? In my view, the OSI does have value, and "OSI Approved Licenses" are useful to know about, just like "FSF Approved Licenses" are good to know about... But they should not pretend to own language and have trademark on "Open Source" when the USPTO denied them a trademark: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php/ https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... Also, there is extensive documented "prior to 1998" use of the term "open-source" meaning exactly "the opposite of closed-source", rather than someones ideological checklist: https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    Btw I think you are replying to the wrong person, from your post it looks like you wanted to reply to my parent.

ewan-mclean 3y ago

> I imagine this probably also includes astroturfing to apply pressure on companies who don't go "all the way" and basically subsidise their competitors for free. I think you are exactly correct. It's deeply disturbing that the OSI out of one side of their mouth says "indie developers, you should forgo any right to your own software or not truly open-source" and out of the other side of their mouth collects donations from giant internet monopolies that freeload... MIT/BSD/Public Domain licenses long pre-date the OSI. The FSF is it's own thing... What's even the point of the OSI beyond trying to pressure developers to drop their creations into the public domain to be stolen?