6 ms·

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 soft

by 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.
    - zeeg 3y ago
      It’s not misleading. You claiming we say something we do not is. I’m not going to continue this conversation as you’ve shown only to be here in bad faith.
      - James_K 3y ago
        If you explain how I've been in bad faith here, I'd be willing to rectify that. You asked a question and I gave you a pretty straight answer. I just can't see why you'd talk about FOSS so much if you really "want no part of that toxicity". I also don't think it's bad faith to say that your decisions were motivated by selling your product. That's a perfectly reasonable motivation. I don't think it's bad faith to say you are misleading people, I never implied that you wanted to. You literally said a few replies ago that you thought I had been mislead into thinking you called yourself FOSS when you didn't. Maybe I am just stupid, but I don't think it takes and idiot to read "open source-minded company" and conclude that you are doing something open source. (In fact, wouldn't it be bad faith to assume that I was lying about what you've said rather than just mistaken?)
    - arp242 3y ago
      To claim that the FSL and Sentry is completely disconnected from FOSS and something different entirely that should never under any shape be associated with it is, quite frankly, just weird. It's "almost FOSS" and they're quite upfront about that, more so than they really need to be. You can decide if you care about that or not, but it's just not misleading under any sort of reasonable definition. This is a profoundly silly and frankly toxic hill to die on.
      - James_K 3y ago
        Imagine if you had donated to a "charitably minded" organisation, then later discovered that they were only an "almost charity". I don't think you would be pleased with that. This is how someone donating their time and code to FSL projects might feel. They are not "quite upfront" about the fact that they aren't FOSS [1]. Open source is constantly under attack from various corporate entities, so it makes sense that we should guard our image. Asking people to be clear about what is and isn't FOSS is a basic consequence of that. FSL is a source available license, and I am simply asking that its users make this fact clear instead of trying to associate themselves with FOSS. That is not unreasonable. That is not toxic. That is simply asking that people don't obfuscate the truth. [1] https://open.sentry.io/ https://open.sentry.io/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - growse 3y ago
    > Where do we (Sentry) ever call ourselves FOSS? If you don't, it's pretty weird to want to do what you "think is good for the broader open source ecosystem".

by zeeg 3y ago

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.
  - zeeg 3y ago
    It’s not misleading. You claiming we say something we do not is. I’m not going to continue this conversation as you’ve shown only to be here in bad faith.
    - James_K 3y ago
      If you explain how I've been in bad faith here, I'd be willing to rectify that. You asked a question and I gave you a pretty straight answer. I just can't see why you'd talk about FOSS so much if you really "want no part of that toxicity". I also don't think it's bad faith to say that your decisions were motivated by selling your product. That's a perfectly reasonable motivation. I don't think it's bad faith to say you are misleading people, I never implied that you wanted to. You literally said a few replies ago that you thought I had been mislead into thinking you called yourself FOSS when you didn't. Maybe I am just stupid, but I don't think it takes and idiot to read "open source-minded company" and conclude that you are doing something open source. (In fact, wouldn't it be bad faith to assume that I was lying about what you've said rather than just mistaken?)
  - arp242 3y ago
    To claim that the FSL and Sentry is completely disconnected from FOSS and something different entirely that should never under any shape be associated with it is, quite frankly, just weird. It's "almost FOSS" and they're quite upfront about that, more so than they really need to be. You can decide if you care about that or not, but it's just not misleading under any sort of reasonable definition. This is a profoundly silly and frankly toxic hill to die on.
    - James_K 3y ago
      Imagine if you had donated to a "charitably minded" organisation, then later discovered that they were only an "almost charity". I don't think you would be pleased with that. This is how someone donating their time and code to FSL projects might feel. They are not "quite upfront" about the fact that they aren't FOSS [1]. Open source is constantly under attack from various corporate entities, so it makes sense that we should guard our image. Asking people to be clear about what is and isn't FOSS is a basic consequence of that. FSL is a source available license, and I am simply asking that its users make this fact clear instead of trying to associate themselves with FOSS. That is not unreasonable. That is not toxic. That is simply asking that people don't obfuscate the truth. [1] https://open.sentry.io/ https://open.sentry.io/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- growse 3y ago
  > Where do we (Sentry) ever call ourselves FOSS? If you don't, it's pretty weird to want to do what you "think is good for the broader open source ecosystem".