5 ms·

Sentry was already using BUSL (Business Source License) for 4+ years with a non-competitive Additional Use Grant. So we had already been doing this for a long t

Sentry was already using BUSL (Business Source License) for 4+ years with a non-competitive Additional Use Grant. So we had already been doing this for a long time. The new license actually allows for more competition, because it has a shorter change date to permissive OSS than the aforementioned prior license (2 years vs 3 years). So another read of this is: the business model is going great, so much so that we're comforable switching to a more progressive license vs. what we had.

James_K 3y ago
So why don't you switch to a fully progressive license? What you're saying here is "we're putting our competitors at slightly less of a disadvantage, and that's good", so why not release under a free license and not put your competitors at any disadvantage? Either you want competition or you don't. What's offensive about this to some people is that you're trying to have the best of both worlds. Pretend that you welcome competition while still suppressing it. I don't think there's anything wrong with you not giving competitors your source code, but I'd rather you were honest about it instead of using this silly half-measure.
- bentlegen 3y ago
  All of this is covered in the article.
  - James_K 3y ago
    I don't think it is.
    - bentlegen 3y ago
      I don’t feel “given you already have a proprietary license, why wouldn’t you just make it freely permissive” needs much explaining. We develop the software; the exclusivity period helps us monetize the work (vs giving it away to someone else who would). I think it’s worth reading the announcement from 2019 when Sentry first switched to BUSL. The original article links to many such pieces. https://blog.sentry.io/relicensing-sentry/ https://blog.sentry.io/relicensing-sentry/
      - James_K 3y ago
        So, you don't want to competition from large cloud providers, but you also want your source to be available to users, and you want to give them a guarantee that the software will not simply die once you stop maintaining it. Then release your software under a source available non-compete license with the caveat that it will become open source when you stop working on it. (Basically what you have already done.) Don't pretend it's FOSS or that it has anything to do with open source because it isn't and it doesn't. You have not made the software open until you have relinquished it to the community at large to do whatever they wish with it. Open source developers dislike this kind of marketing because it muddies the waters of what isn't and isn't free. If someone contributes to your software thinking it's free, you have mislead them to profit off their work. I don't care what you do with your code, but don't mischaracterise it. Don't give big talk about how you "believe in open source" or whatever. Say that you are source-available, and that isn't FOSS, but say no more than that. Especially do not say that you are "The Future of Open Source". That is nothing but a lie an it's obvious why real open source developers giving their time for the public good would take offence to it. Open source is like charity. Don't call yourself a charity or associate yourself with charity unless you actually are one.
        bentlegen 3y ago
        > Then release your software under a source available non-compete license with the caveat that it will become open source when you stop working on it. (Basically what you have already done.) Done. Note that the license website is pretty clear that it is not Open Source. If you find a place where that is not true, you can open an issue on the website’s repo and we’ll address. https://fsl.software/ https://fsl.software/
        James_K 3y ago
        > Note that the license website is pretty clear that it is not Open Source Then fix this one: https://open.sentry.io/ https://open.sentry.io/ You have admitted that you aren't open source and that this is a blatant lie so remove it.
- etothepii 3y ago
  > Why don't you switch to a fully progressive license? Because the users who pay / use the software as the developer intended are to be rewarded with new features sooner. > Either you want competition or you don't Customers want competition. To a first order approximation businesses don't. No one want competition for SEO which is essentially what is being suggested here. If the product can be taken and spun up instantly on any new release all the "competition" is on who can make page 1 of Google. As we have all seen with stack overflow content this is not ideal.
- zeeg 3y ago
  We welcome you to spend 15 years and 10s of millions of your own money to compete with us, by writing your own software. If you think taking someone else’s software and spending ad money to sell it is “competition” I don’t know what to tell you.
  - James_K 3y ago
    Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I don't think they need to give people access to their software. That it might even be unfair to expect them to do so. But if they don't do it, they can't call themselves FOSS. It would be unfair to expect a restaurant to sell everything at a 50% discount, but if they said they were doing that and it turned out they weren't, I'd have every right to complain.
    - zeeg 3y ago
      Where do we (Sentry) ever call ourselves FOSS? If FOSS is represented by the community in this thread I want no part of that toxicity. We do what we think is good and for developers and customers, and the broader open source ecosystem. A lot of us have been doing that for quite some time and will continue to do so.
      - James_K 3y ago
        EDIT: actually, you couldn't be more blatently lying about this. https://open.sentry.io/ https://open.sentry.io/ > We're Open Source The title of the page. You really thought you could sneak that past me. You cannot seriously make a reply like this when you have an entire domain name dedicated to the tile "We're Open Source". That is the most obvious of obvious lies. Even the page title "yes, we're open source" is a kind of passive-aggressive jab at people who think you aren't. Stop pretending to be open source and stop calling the open source community toxic. ------- End Edit ------- https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/11/19/cathedral-and-bazaaar-licensing/ https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/11/19/cathedral-and-bazaaar-li... > I assert that the FSL's approach is more closely aligned with Open Source ideals than mere source availability. https://blog.sentry.io/introducing-the-functional-source-license-freedom-without-free-riding/ https://blog.sentry.io/introducing-the-functional-source-lic... > We think it is a compelling option for Open Source-minded SaaS companies such as ourselves who wish to grant freedom > for Open Source-minded SaaS companies such as ours, we think it’s a strong option. This entire article is full of vague legal-speak designed to associate yourselves with FOSS as much as possible without actually saying you are. I can't see why you would do this unless your intention is to mislead or you have been mislead yourselves. You spend so much time talking about user-freedom, which has nothing to do with this license as it promotes developer sustainability over user freedom (even more-so than a simple non-compete license). Like it or not, this is misleading. You should clarify your language on the matter. You aren't open source, and you've admitted as much yourself. You aren't "open-source minded" either (whatever that means). You said in the article that you should find a name for what you are doing, well, one already exists. It's called "source available". Open source software exists for anyone to use and profit from as they wish. You make the source of your code available because you think it will make a better product. You say that your software will become FOSS if you stop working on it to create more confidence in your product. These are all focused around selling your product, rather than around being genuinely free and open. Until you admit that this is what you're doing, you will be misleading people.

James_K 3y ago

So why don't you switch to a fully progressive license? What you're saying here is "we're putting our competitors at slightly less of a disadvantage, and that's good", so why not release under a free license and not put your competitors at any disadvantage? Either you want competition or you don't. What's offensive about this to some people is that you're trying to have the best of both worlds. Pretend that you welcome competition while still suppressing it. I don't think there's anything wrong with you not giving competitors your source code, but I'd rather you were honest about it instead of using this silly half-measure.

bentlegen 3y ago
All of this is covered in the article.
- James_K 3y ago
  I don't think it is.
  - bentlegen 3y ago
    I don’t feel “given you already have a proprietary license, why wouldn’t you just make it freely permissive” needs much explaining. We develop the software; the exclusivity period helps us monetize the work (vs giving it away to someone else who would). I think it’s worth reading the announcement from 2019 when Sentry first switched to BUSL. The original article links to many such pieces. https://blog.sentry.io/relicensing-sentry/ https://blog.sentry.io/relicensing-sentry/
    - James_K 3y ago
      So, you don't want to competition from large cloud providers, but you also want your source to be available to users, and you want to give them a guarantee that the software will not simply die once you stop maintaining it. Then release your software under a source available non-compete license with the caveat that it will become open source when you stop working on it. (Basically what you have already done.) Don't pretend it's FOSS or that it has anything to do with open source because it isn't and it doesn't. You have not made the software open until you have relinquished it to the community at large to do whatever they wish with it. Open source developers dislike this kind of marketing because it muddies the waters of what isn't and isn't free. If someone contributes to your software thinking it's free, you have mislead them to profit off their work. I don't care what you do with your code, but don't mischaracterise it. Don't give big talk about how you "believe in open source" or whatever. Say that you are source-available, and that isn't FOSS, but say no more than that. Especially do not say that you are "The Future of Open Source". That is nothing but a lie an it's obvious why real open source developers giving their time for the public good would take offence to it. Open source is like charity. Don't call yourself a charity or associate yourself with charity unless you actually are one.
      - bentlegen 3y ago
        > Then release your software under a source available non-compete license with the caveat that it will become open source when you stop working on it. (Basically what you have already done.) Done. Note that the license website is pretty clear that it is not Open Source. If you find a place where that is not true, you can open an issue on the website’s repo and we’ll address. https://fsl.software/ https://fsl.software/
        James_K 3y ago
        > Note that the license website is pretty clear that it is not Open Source Then fix this one: https://open.sentry.io/ https://open.sentry.io/ You have admitted that you aren't open source and that this is a blatant lie so remove it.
etothepii 3y ago
> Why don't you switch to a fully progressive license? Because the users who pay / use the software as the developer intended are to be rewarded with new features sooner. > Either you want competition or you don't Customers want competition. To a first order approximation businesses don't. No one want competition for SEO which is essentially what is being suggested here. If the product can be taken and spun up instantly on any new release all the "competition" is on who can make page 1 of Google. As we have all seen with stack overflow content this is not ideal.
zeeg 3y ago
We welcome you to spend 15 years and 10s of millions of your own money to compete with us, by writing your own software. If you think taking someone else’s software and spending ad money to sell it is “competition” I don’t know what to tell you.
- James_K 3y ago
  Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I don't think they need to give people access to their software. That it might even be unfair to expect them to do so. But if they don't do it, they can't call themselves FOSS. It would be unfair to expect a restaurant to sell everything at a 50% discount, but if they said they were doing that and it turned out they weren't, I'd have every right to complain.
  - zeeg 3y ago
    Where do we (Sentry) ever call ourselves FOSS? If FOSS is represented by the community in this thread I want no part of that toxicity. We do what we think is good and for developers and customers, and the broader open source ecosystem. A lot of us have been doing that for quite some time and will continue to do so.
    - James_K 3y ago
      EDIT: actually, you couldn't be more blatently lying about this. https://open.sentry.io/ https://open.sentry.io/ > We're Open Source The title of the page. You really thought you could sneak that past me. You cannot seriously make a reply like this when you have an entire domain name dedicated to the tile "We're Open Source". That is the most obvious of obvious lies. Even the page title "yes, we're open source" is a kind of passive-aggressive jab at people who think you aren't. Stop pretending to be open source and stop calling the open source community toxic. ------- End Edit ------- https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/11/19/cathedral-and-bazaaar-licensing/ https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/11/19/cathedral-and-bazaaar-li... > I assert that the FSL's approach is more closely aligned with Open Source ideals than mere source availability. https://blog.sentry.io/introducing-the-functional-source-license-freedom-without-free-riding/ https://blog.sentry.io/introducing-the-functional-source-lic... > We think it is a compelling option for Open Source-minded SaaS companies such as ourselves who wish to grant freedom > for Open Source-minded SaaS companies such as ours, we think it’s a strong option. This entire article is full of vague legal-speak designed to associate yourselves with FOSS as much as possible without actually saying you are. I can't see why you would do this unless your intention is to mislead or you have been mislead yourselves. You spend so much time talking about user-freedom, which has nothing to do with this license as it promotes developer sustainability over user freedom (even more-so than a simple non-compete license). Like it or not, this is misleading. You should clarify your language on the matter. You aren't open source, and you've admitted as much yourself. You aren't "open-source minded" either (whatever that means). You said in the article that you should find a name for what you are doing, well, one already exists. It's called "source available". Open source software exists for anyone to use and profit from as they wish. You make the source of your code available because you think it will make a better product. You say that your software will become FOSS if you stop working on it to create more confidence in your product. These are all focused around selling your product, rather than around being genuinely free and open. Until you admit that this is what you're doing, you will be misleading people.