4 ms·

Indeed, this is not open-source: this is public-source. They don't really open the project to external contribution, they just publish their code and continue t

Indeed, this is not open-source: this is public-source. They don't really open the project to external contribution, they just publish their code and continue the project as their tool. They will not have incentive to add features that are not useful to their business even if it useful to the community (if provided by a PR for example), because all the developers of the project are employed by the same company and this company doesn't have any reason to review and fix code that is not part of their business.

mhitza 2y ago
> Indeed, this is not open-source: this is public-source. They don't really open the project to external contribution It's open source, and they don't have to accept external contributions. Terms have a well-defined meaning, please refrain from calling open source code not open source, and not open source code, open source.
- sramam 2y ago
  You are arguing the difference between the letter and spirit of the law.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - homarp 2y ago
    you can fork it and continue dev in case they change their mind, it is open source. any other 'source available' licenses would not (legally) let you do that.
Fidelix 2y ago
It has the Apache license, definitely Open Source. https://github.com/Netflix/maestro/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/Netflix/maestro/blob/main/LICENSE
- mikepurvis 2y ago
  I think the contention here is more about whether it's an open project— does it have an open bugtracker, an open project management structure, clear governance, etc. It not having those things is fine, and eventually someone may still take the source and create an open project around it. But understanding that is a Netflix project helps calibrate people's understanding around whether the model when you find a bug is going to be "fork, fix, and run the fork indefinitely" or "fork, fix, contribution accepted, drop fork and return to upstream."
b800h 2y ago
It's absolutely open source, under the Apache license. If a nascent community takes it and runs with it then the public version will become dominant.

mhitza 2y ago

> Indeed, this is not open-source: this is public-source. They don't really open the project to external contribution It's open source, and they don't have to accept external contributions. Terms have a well-defined meaning, please refrain from calling open source code not open source, and not open source code, open source.

sramam 2y ago
You are arguing the difference between the letter and spirit of the law.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- homarp 2y ago
  you can fork it and continue dev in case they change their mind, it is open source. any other 'source available' licenses would not (legally) let you do that.

Fidelix 2y ago

It has the Apache license, definitely Open Source. https://github.com/Netflix/maestro/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/Netflix/maestro/blob/main/LICENSE

mikepurvis 2y ago
I think the contention here is more about whether it's an open project— does it have an open bugtracker, an open project management structure, clear governance, etc. It not having those things is fine, and eventually someone may still take the source and create an open project around it. But understanding that is a Netflix project helps calibrate people's understanding around whether the model when you find a bug is going to be "fork, fix, and run the fork indefinitely" or "fork, fix, contribution accepted, drop fork and return to upstream."

b800h 2y ago

It's absolutely open source, under the Apache license. If a nascent community takes it and runs with it then the public version will become dominant.