3 ms·

Personally most of us at Sentry who made these decisions don’t like the invasive open source licenses. It was between this and allowing others to sell our softw

by zeeg 3y ago

Personally most of us at Sentry who made these decisions don’t like the invasive open source licenses. It was between this and allowing others to sell our software (which is very demoralizing), but we didn’t want to limit adoption and some companies won’t run GPL software due to the risks.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Right, so dual license it to allow both
- zeeg 3y ago
  We explicitly _do not_ want to promote GPL as we do not believe in it as the right tool. It’s not exclusively around protecting ourselves, but also how we do it. Decisions like this are more rooted in what we think is right for the world than a business demand (tho BSL for us, the decision to move off BSD, was triggered by what some companies were doing).
- tedivm 3y ago
  If you look at it from a high level, Sentry wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to promote GPL/AGPL open source development because it's harder for them to profit off of it, but they don't want others to profit off of their work which is why they're sticking with a "source available" license.
  - zeeg 3y ago
    I’m not sure why you’re 20 comments deep on HN, but we forbid (like most companies) GPL software. It’s no harder to profit off GPL than it is Apache, but GPL is a disease that plagues the technology world. There’s a reason we convert our code (and release most code) under Apache and that’s because it’s true FOSS. GPL has strings attached just like BSL. Clearly we hurt your feelings somewhere on the past, but let’s not go around spreading falsehoods.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      > but we forbid (like most companies) GPL software. Er, what? GPL is completely fine for corporate use; it doesn't even trigger until you distribute to third parties. > but GPL is a disease that plagues the technology world. There’s a reason we convert our code (and release most code) under Apache and that’s because it’s true FOSS. GPL has strings attached just like BSL. It really doesn't. And if you're at a point where you're arguing that BSL is Open Source but GPL isn't... on the bright side, there's no point in arguing after that; you're clearly in a different world than the rest of us. > Clearly we hurt your feelings somewhere on the past, but let’s not go around spreading falsehoods. Let's also not go around making unhelpful ad hominems.
      - max_faust 3y ago
        [dead]
    - zeeg 3y ago
      > Er, what? GPL is completely fine for corporate use; it doesn't even trigger until you distribute to third parties A lot of us distribute software. It’s not an outlier, it’s the majority. It may have been a different concern 20 years ago, but software and adoption has changed dramatically. > It really doesn't. And if you're at a point where you're arguing that BSL is Open Source but GPL isn't... on the bright side, there's no point in arguing after that; you're clearly in a different world than the rest of us. I’m not. I’m saying that it’s odd to be able to justify GPL as open source yet be unwilling to consider something like BSL as part of the ecosystem. Both have serious restrictions, albeit different. Neither let you “do whatever you want” which some might write is true FOSS.
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      > I’m not sure why you’re 20 comments deep on HN Why are you?

by zeeg 3y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

Right, so dual license it to allow both

zeeg 3y ago
We explicitly _do not_ want to promote GPL as we do not believe in it as the right tool. It’s not exclusively around protecting ourselves, but also how we do it. Decisions like this are more rooted in what we think is right for the world than a business demand (tho BSL for us, the decision to move off BSD, was triggered by what some companies were doing).
tedivm 3y ago
If you look at it from a high level, Sentry wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to promote GPL/AGPL open source development because it's harder for them to profit off of it, but they don't want others to profit off of their work which is why they're sticking with a "source available" license.
- zeeg 3y ago
  I’m not sure why you’re 20 comments deep on HN, but we forbid (like most companies) GPL software. It’s no harder to profit off GPL than it is Apache, but GPL is a disease that plagues the technology world. There’s a reason we convert our code (and release most code) under Apache and that’s because it’s true FOSS. GPL has strings attached just like BSL. Clearly we hurt your feelings somewhere on the past, but let’s not go around spreading falsehoods.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > but we forbid (like most companies) GPL software. Er, what? GPL is completely fine for corporate use; it doesn't even trigger until you distribute to third parties. > but GPL is a disease that plagues the technology world. There’s a reason we convert our code (and release most code) under Apache and that’s because it’s true FOSS. GPL has strings attached just like BSL. It really doesn't. And if you're at a point where you're arguing that BSL is Open Source but GPL isn't... on the bright side, there's no point in arguing after that; you're clearly in a different world than the rest of us. > Clearly we hurt your feelings somewhere on the past, but let’s not go around spreading falsehoods. Let's also not go around making unhelpful ad hominems.
    - max_faust 3y ago
      [dead]
  - zeeg 3y ago
    > Er, what? GPL is completely fine for corporate use; it doesn't even trigger until you distribute to third parties A lot of us distribute software. It’s not an outlier, it’s the majority. It may have been a different concern 20 years ago, but software and adoption has changed dramatically. > It really doesn't. And if you're at a point where you're arguing that BSL is Open Source but GPL isn't... on the bright side, there's no point in arguing after that; you're clearly in a different world than the rest of us. I’m not. I’m saying that it’s odd to be able to justify GPL as open source yet be unwilling to consider something like BSL as part of the ecosystem. Both have serious restrictions, albeit different. Neither let you “do whatever you want” which some might write is true FOSS.
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    > I’m not sure why you’re 20 comments deep on HN Why are you?