5 ms·

> All content that resides under the "ee/" directory of this repository, if that directory exists, is licensed under the license defined in "ee/LICENSE" Doesn'

> All content that resides under the "ee/" directory of this repository, if that directory exists, is licensed under the license defined in "ee/LICENSE" Doesn't that make it "open-core"?

marcinzm 3y ago
I also can't find any description of what is in the Open Source version and what is in the not Open Source version. Does the README cover both or just one?
- 0xbadcafebee 3y ago
  The LICENSE file explains what is covered by what
  - deng 3y ago
    The LICENSE file does not explain which features are exclusive to the 'Teams' or 'Enterprise' plan of SigNoz. You need to dig through the documentation to find that. For instance, when you check for setting up SAML at https://signoz.io/docs/userguide/sso-authentication/#saml-based-authentication https://signoz.io/docs/userguide/sso-authentication/#saml-ba..., you will find that it is not available in the free version. I don't have a problem with open-core software, but please, be open about it and show a feature matrix of how the different versions compare.
    - mcmcmc 3y ago
      Add ‘em to the list: https://sso.tax/ https://sso.tax/
NathanFlurry 3y ago
Imo almost every "open source" VC-backed startup is actually "open core" (including us.) I'm yet to see a startup that doesn't have a significant closed-source or restrictively-licensed component. My philosophy for both creating & consuming OSS: the core needs to (a) have an OSI-approved license (read: no BSL, SSPL), (b) needs to be useful without the closed source component, and (c) needs to be easy to run without the closed source component. Otherwise, see [1]. I also avoid AGPL, even though it is OSI-approved. TC has a good take on the economics of fully open source companies [2]. [1] https://openwashing.org/ https://openwashing.org/ [2] https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-want-to-be-the-next-red-hat/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-wa...
- benatkin 3y ago
  There are still proper open core ones out there. When it comes to closed source* I prefer source unavailable except for security auditing reasons, because I don't want to be accused of stealing their code. I am consistent about not wanting to look at their closed source code, so if get accused of that I will vigorously defend myself from it. I could use a script to git clone without a directory so I can view these offline. :) Some have empty ee directories set up in anticipation of doing this in the future. I don't know if it's to trick people into becoming tainted by it or to increase acceptance, but it no doubt tricks people into downloading and viewing source-available proprietary code. It's one feature of a monorepo that I see as a disadvantage that has further had me be more of a microrepo guy. :) If it's source available for a security reason I prefer it to be in its own repo like Tarsnap. https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html Here's the source available one: https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap Here's the list of repos with some various open source ones to show it's open core: https://github.com/Tarsnap https://github.com/Tarsnap That's a proper Open Core repo. GitLab FWIW follows, maybe pioneered, this ee directory model, so though there's a lot I like about GitLab they get this thing about Open Core wrong IMO. * You can see the source, but it's still closed in terms of what you can do with it, so I am comfortable using "closed source" and "proprietary" interchangeably when talking about source available code.
asylteltine 3y ago
[dead]

> All content that resides under the "ee/" directory of this repository, if that directory exists, is licensed under the license defined in "ee/LICENSE" Doesn't that make it "open-core"?

marcinzm 3y ago

I also can't find any description of what is in the Open Source version and what is in the not Open Source version. Does the README cover both or just one?

0xbadcafebee 3y ago
The LICENSE file explains what is covered by what
- deng 3y ago
  The LICENSE file does not explain which features are exclusive to the 'Teams' or 'Enterprise' plan of SigNoz. You need to dig through the documentation to find that. For instance, when you check for setting up SAML at https://signoz.io/docs/userguide/sso-authentication/#saml-based-authentication https://signoz.io/docs/userguide/sso-authentication/#saml-ba..., you will find that it is not available in the free version. I don't have a problem with open-core software, but please, be open about it and show a feature matrix of how the different versions compare.
  - mcmcmc 3y ago
    Add ‘em to the list: https://sso.tax/ https://sso.tax/

NathanFlurry 3y ago

Imo almost every "open source" VC-backed startup is actually "open core" (including us.) I'm yet to see a startup that doesn't have a significant closed-source or restrictively-licensed component. My philosophy for both creating & consuming OSS: the core needs to (a) have an OSI-approved license (read: no BSL, SSPL), (b) needs to be useful without the closed source component, and (c) needs to be easy to run without the closed source component. Otherwise, see [1]. I also avoid AGPL, even though it is OSI-approved. TC has a good take on the economics of fully open source companies [2]. [1] https://openwashing.org/ https://openwashing.org/ [2] https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-want-to-be-the-next-red-hat/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-wa...

benatkin 3y ago
There are still proper open core ones out there. When it comes to closed source* I prefer source unavailable except for security auditing reasons, because I don't want to be accused of stealing their code. I am consistent about not wanting to look at their closed source code, so if get accused of that I will vigorously defend myself from it. I could use a script to git clone without a directory so I can view these offline. :) Some have empty ee directories set up in anticipation of doing this in the future. I don't know if it's to trick people into becoming tainted by it or to increase acceptance, but it no doubt tricks people into downloading and viewing source-available proprietary code. It's one feature of a monorepo that I see as a disadvantage that has further had me be more of a microrepo guy. :) If it's source available for a security reason I prefer it to be in its own repo like Tarsnap. https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html Here's the source available one: https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap Here's the list of repos with some various open source ones to show it's open core: https://github.com/Tarsnap https://github.com/Tarsnap That's a proper Open Core repo. GitLab FWIW follows, maybe pioneered, this ee directory model, so though there's a lot I like about GitLab they get this thing about Open Core wrong IMO. * You can see the source, but it's still closed in terms of what you can do with it, so I am comfortable using "closed source" and "proprietary" interchangeably when talking about source available code.

asylteltine 3y ago

[dead]