4 ms·

I think this is not particularly impartial. Sentry is marked as "NOPE" even though it is basically open source (any commit older than two years is), yet projec

I think this is not particularly impartial. Sentry is marked as "NOPE" even though it is basically open source (any commit older than two years is), yet projects that are open core forever are "issues exist" and "partially".

lytedev 1y ago
Wouldn't "partially" be fair? Since not ALL of the project is, but only source of a certain age?
- the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
  That in my mind would be a much fairer categorization.
JoshTriplett 1y ago
> Sentry is marked as "NOPE" even though it is basically open source (any commit older than two years is), In other words, current Sentry isn't Open Source, but old versions are available. I think it's a fair characterization that Sentry is not Open Source, unless there's an actual community around the Open Source version.
- the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
  Having a community is not necessary for licenses to have a certain effect. I made the argument in the past that the FSL gives you more rights than the AGPL, it just does it slightly later. The effect however is greater. See https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/11/19/cathedral-and-bazaaar-licensing/ https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/11/19/cathedral-and-bazaaar-li...
- zvr 1y ago
  I agree with the first part ("current Sentry isn't Open Source"), not with the second one ("unless there's an actual community"). A software can be Open Source without actual development community. Ah, wait -- you don't say that Open Source requires a community. You state that, if there was interest in the older version of Sentry, then that version could be considered as Open Source. I agree with this one as well, then. [I considered deleting this comment, but maybe it will be useful to others who have not read closely.]
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    Right, exactly. I'm not saying a project must have a community in order to be Open Source. I'm saying in order to be considered for a list like this, something should be a project in its own right rather than just a stale version of another project.
koolala 1y ago
Why is this project switching its license 2 years ago during development not a problem? What is good about Sentry? edit: Oh you mean rolling time windows.
hk1337 1y ago
> The project is licensed under an FSL-1.1-Apache-2.0 license which, for two years after release, prevents use, modification and distribution when done in a range of ways which may compete with the original project. The current license for sentry seems to be a large part of the reason for the nope. They give a pretty detailed explanation of the decision. It’s still a good product.
pxc 1y ago
The FSL, like the BuSL that Hashicorp Terraform is now under, is a proprietary software license. "Partially" makes sense for something where some component or subproject is released under a proprietary license and other components or subprojects are released under a free software license. Software that will eventually be open-source isn't yet open-source. A once-F/OSS codebase that was closed and removed from GitHub two years ago also has all commits that are 2+ years old open-source, but that that doesn't make such a codebase open-source, either.
- the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
  I don’t agree with this assessment though. By that logic if I just happen to release everything I do with a two year delay it’s open source by the logic of this website but it would have the same effect.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    You don't have to agree, but it doesn't have the same effect. The reality is the company is releasing software to customers that have no way of using the source code to that software under an open source license. You can claim this is somehow open source because they will eventually be able to use the source code under an open source license, but that doesn't make the software open source today, any more than you can lock someone in jail and claim they're actually free because they'll get out in two years.
retroflexzy 1y ago
Or, at least, not giving a fair take on its particular approach to open source. We both self-host and pay for the service. There is ample engagement from the development team with the larger community. There are also a myriad of open source projects without the same licence restrictions that Sentry-the-company publishes or maintains which make up key functionalities in Sentry-the-product.
koolala 1y ago
How often does Sentry contribute to its own two year old branch? Is anyone maintaining a fork of it that would deserve to be on this list?
- mdaniel 1y ago
  I don't believe it's a fork, but https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/glitchtip-backend https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/glitchtip-backend is MIT and aims to be the actual Open Source replacement for Sentry Given that it's almost been 2 years since the FSL change[1], I would imagine it's possible to set up a rolling mirror into https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/sentry-open-source/sentry https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/sentry-open-source/sentry that serves as an easier "what is actually open right now?" browser. I just realized while typing that out: a snapshot of the source code actually doesn't help anyone know if a particular commit is Apache 2 since the change is dependent upon an accounting record on GitHub That was the advantage of the BuSL 1.1 scheme, that those cut-over dates were embedded in the file https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.7.0/LICENSE#L19 https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.7.0/LICENSE#L19 and https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.8.0/LICENSE#L19 https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.8.0/LICENSE#L19 is open in 10 days 1: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/commit/d4d89e2fa93ad99f13d54d06d3e7df3e7753b2dc.patch https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/commit/d4d89e2fa93ad99f1... is Nov 17, 2023 -05:00
rpdillon 1y ago
It's in no way "basically open source", and the list strikes me as completely impartial. You cite Sentry, which says this on their licensing page: > All components powering the main Sentry and Codecov web apps use FSL, which limits their usage in a commercial Sentry-like offering. The license limits usage in a commercial context. That's not FOSS by the OSI's definition, which is the definition I care about. Heck, you can tell from the URL that Sentry _really_ wants to pretend they are open source. https://open.sentry.io/licensing/ https://open.sentry.io/licensing/

lytedev 1y ago

Wouldn't "partially" be fair? Since not ALL of the project is, but only source of a certain age?

the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
That in my mind would be a much fairer categorization.

JoshTriplett 1y ago

> Sentry is marked as "NOPE" even though it is basically open source (any commit older than two years is), In other words, current Sentry isn't Open Source, but old versions are available. I think it's a fair characterization that Sentry is not Open Source, unless there's an actual community around the Open Source version.

the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
Having a community is not necessary for licenses to have a certain effect. I made the argument in the past that the FSL gives you more rights than the AGPL, it just does it slightly later. The effect however is greater. See https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/11/19/cathedral-and-bazaaar-licensing/ https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/11/19/cathedral-and-bazaaar-li...
zvr 1y ago
I agree with the first part ("current Sentry isn't Open Source"), not with the second one ("unless there's an actual community"). A software can be Open Source without actual development community. Ah, wait -- you don't say that Open Source requires a community. You state that, if there was interest in the older version of Sentry, then that version could be considered as Open Source. I agree with this one as well, then. [I considered deleting this comment, but maybe it will be useful to others who have not read closely.]
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  Right, exactly. I'm not saying a project must have a community in order to be Open Source. I'm saying in order to be considered for a list like this, something should be a project in its own right rather than just a stale version of another project.

koolala 1y ago

Why is this project switching its license 2 years ago during development not a problem? What is good about Sentry? edit: Oh you mean rolling time windows.

hk1337 1y ago

> The project is licensed under an FSL-1.1-Apache-2.0 license which, for two years after release, prevents use, modification and distribution when done in a range of ways which may compete with the original project. The current license for sentry seems to be a large part of the reason for the nope. They give a pretty detailed explanation of the decision. It’s still a good product.

pxc 1y ago

The FSL, like the BuSL that Hashicorp Terraform is now under, is a proprietary software license. "Partially" makes sense for something where some component or subproject is released under a proprietary license and other components or subprojects are released under a free software license. Software that will eventually be open-source isn't yet open-source. A once-F/OSS codebase that was closed and removed from GitHub two years ago also has all commits that are 2+ years old open-source, but that that doesn't make such a codebase open-source, either.

the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
I don’t agree with this assessment though. By that logic if I just happen to release everything I do with a two year delay it’s open source by the logic of this website but it would have the same effect.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  You don't have to agree, but it doesn't have the same effect. The reality is the company is releasing software to customers that have no way of using the source code to that software under an open source license. You can claim this is somehow open source because they will eventually be able to use the source code under an open source license, but that doesn't make the software open source today, any more than you can lock someone in jail and claim they're actually free because they'll get out in two years.

retroflexzy 1y ago

Or, at least, not giving a fair take on its particular approach to open source. We both self-host and pay for the service. There is ample engagement from the development team with the larger community. There are also a myriad of open source projects without the same licence restrictions that Sentry-the-company publishes or maintains which make up key functionalities in Sentry-the-product.

koolala 1y ago

How often does Sentry contribute to its own two year old branch? Is anyone maintaining a fork of it that would deserve to be on this list?

mdaniel 1y ago
I don't believe it's a fork, but https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/glitchtip-backend https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/glitchtip-backend is MIT and aims to be the actual Open Source replacement for Sentry Given that it's almost been 2 years since the FSL change[1], I would imagine it's possible to set up a rolling mirror into https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/sentry-open-source/sentry https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/sentry-open-source/sentry that serves as an easier "what is actually open right now?" browser. I just realized while typing that out: a snapshot of the source code actually doesn't help anyone know if a particular commit is Apache 2 since the change is dependent upon an accounting record on GitHub That was the advantage of the BuSL 1.1 scheme, that those cut-over dates were embedded in the file https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.7.0/LICENSE#L19 https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.7.0/LICENSE#L19 and https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.8.0/LICENSE#L19 https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.8.0/LICENSE#L19 is open in 10 days 1: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/commit/d4d89e2fa93ad99f13d54d06d3e7df3e7753b2dc.patch https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/commit/d4d89e2fa93ad99f1... is Nov 17, 2023 -05:00

rpdillon 1y ago

It's in no way "basically open source", and the list strikes me as completely impartial. You cite Sentry, which says this on their licensing page: > All components powering the main Sentry and Codecov web apps use FSL, which limits their usage in a commercial Sentry-like offering. The license limits usage in a commercial context. That's not FOSS by the OSI's definition, which is the definition I care about. Heck, you can tell from the URL that Sentry _really_ wants to pretend they are open source. https://open.sentry.io/licensing/ https://open.sentry.io/licensing/