4 ms·

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. Y

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/
  - arp242 3y ago
    "Open source" is not a charity and you don't donate to Sentry. People have come out of Guantanamo Bay less tortured than that analogy. > Asking people to be clear about what is and isn't FOSS is a basic consequence of that. You are throwing around wild accusations bordering on the conspiratorial and making demands that are just beyond reason. The simple good-faith reading is that the Sentry people want to be as "open as possible" without compromising their business to the point of being unviable. There is nothing I know in the entire context and history of Sentry that would dispute that, and you've certainly provided zero evidence of it. Quite frankly it amazed me that the people at Sentry even try in the face of complete rubbish that's being thrown around here by various people.
    - 3y ago
zeeg 3y ago
https://github.com/getsentry https://github.com/getsentry You suggesting we are anything but what we are just makes you look like you have an agenda at best, or foolish at worst. All you're doing is harming the broader community by arguing about nonsense which is factually proven to be untrue. You came in here trolling as best you could, making false statements without reading or educating yourself on any components. Making statements as if you're a legal expert, as if you're an expert on open source history, on who or what Sentry is or has been. 1. A majority of Sentry's source code permissive open source. This is a fact, and easily verifiable. 2. FOSS is not Open Source. So when you constantly equate the two you simply come off as misinformed. 3. Sentry has continually shown good faith in a variety of activities, including donation of services, financial backing of large projects, financial backing of our dependency graph. 4. We are not rug pulling - we migrated our BUSL-licensed projects to FSL. BUSL is already non-compete source-available, FSL is the same thing but a more aggressive time-delay, and a better license conversion mechanism. 5. There is no "vague legal speak designed to [do anything harmful]". If its vague to you, maybe you should stay away from licensing, or you should start contributing back intead of creating toxicity on internet forums. In fact, the FSL is designed to be _more easily understood_ than prior licenses of its type.
- em-bee 3y ago
  FOSS is not Open Source sorry, what? All Free Software licenses are also Open Source licenses. so how can FOSS be not Open Source?
  - zeeg 3y ago
    For clarity, I meant the two terms are not interchangeable.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      well, for most intents and purposes they are interchangeable. there are very few Open Source licenses that can't also be considered Free Software licenses. at worst they are the same in spirit but incompatible for some technicality. or they are much more open, but compatible, so i don't think it is fair to argue that the difference matters.

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/
- arp242 3y ago
  "Open source" is not a charity and you don't donate to Sentry. People have come out of Guantanamo Bay less tortured than that analogy. > Asking people to be clear about what is and isn't FOSS is a basic consequence of that. You are throwing around wild accusations bordering on the conspiratorial and making demands that are just beyond reason. The simple good-faith reading is that the Sentry people want to be as "open as possible" without compromising their business to the point of being unviable. There is nothing I know in the entire context and history of Sentry that would dispute that, and you've certainly provided zero evidence of it. Quite frankly it amazed me that the people at Sentry even try in the face of complete rubbish that's being thrown around here by various people.
  - 3y ago

zeeg 3y ago

https://github.com/getsentry https://github.com/getsentry You suggesting we are anything but what we are just makes you look like you have an agenda at best, or foolish at worst. All you're doing is harming the broader community by arguing about nonsense which is factually proven to be untrue. You came in here trolling as best you could, making false statements without reading or educating yourself on any components. Making statements as if you're a legal expert, as if you're an expert on open source history, on who or what Sentry is or has been. 1. A majority of Sentry's source code permissive open source. This is a fact, and easily verifiable. 2. FOSS is not Open Source. So when you constantly equate the two you simply come off as misinformed. 3. Sentry has continually shown good faith in a variety of activities, including donation of services, financial backing of large projects, financial backing of our dependency graph. 4. We are not rug pulling - we migrated our BUSL-licensed projects to FSL. BUSL is already non-compete source-available, FSL is the same thing but a more aggressive time-delay, and a better license conversion mechanism. 5. There is no "vague legal speak designed to [do anything harmful]". If its vague to you, maybe you should stay away from licensing, or you should start contributing back intead of creating toxicity on internet forums. In fact, the FSL is designed to be _more easily understood_ than prior licenses of its type.

em-bee 3y ago
FOSS is not Open Source sorry, what? All Free Software licenses are also Open Source licenses. so how can FOSS be not Open Source?
- zeeg 3y ago
  For clarity, I meant the two terms are not interchangeable.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    well, for most intents and purposes they are interchangeable. there are very few Open Source licenses that can't also be considered Free Software licenses. at worst they are the same in spirit but incompatible for some technicality. or they are much more open, but compatible, so i don't think it is fair to argue that the difference matters.