5 ms·

Yet more evidence that venture capital is basically incompatible with open source software. It's just a matter of time before any VC-backed open source company

Yet more evidence that venture capital is basically incompatible with open source software. It's just a matter of time before any VC-backed open source company betrays its users.

JimDabell 1y ago
n8n was never open source. They started out using Apache with a non-free clause added, but they called themselves open-source incorrectly. Then when this became more widely known, they stopped calling themselves open-source.
- echelon 1y ago
  Why is it okay to just accept that the hyperscalers are 100% closed, but the minute a smaller player tries to play "open-ish" with "fair source" we crucify them? Fair source is amazing. You get the code. You can modify the code. You can redistribute the code. You just can't take their business from them and compete with them head-to-head with their product. You can reformulate it into something else, but you can't take their labor and cut their knees off with it. You have literally every other freedom. Why in the hell are so many people against that? Fair source is sustainable and equitable. You get everything except for that one little right with which you could compete with them. Everyone gushes over Obsidian - that's not even "source available" or "fair source". It's completely closed. I bet if Obsidian went "fair source", and you could download the code and compile it yourself, there would be hundreds of voices crawling out of the woodwork to call them the devil for not being pure OSI-approved open. How dare they keep one little freedom to themselves for all the hard work they've done? I'm half convinced the anti-"fair source" voices are deep industry folks who want big tech to own the OSI definition. Who can use it strategically as they sit atop hundreds of billions of dollars in cash flows. Open source to the FAANGMAGMA Gods is just a way of outsourcing labor and dangling trinkets in front of underpaid labor. n8n isn't doing a "VC rug pull." They're trying to be sustainable. The only thing that's been "pulled" is the wool over the eyes of every engineer satisfied with FAANG OSI-approved serfdom. Some of the pieces are "open" all right, but they own pretty much everything the sunlight touches. If n8n can't build a business then it just becomes some side project hobby. What exactly do we think every other company is doing? Please be more pragmatic and realize that "fair source" is sustainable. It rewards the innovators and you get almost everything for free. You just can't shoot them with their own gun. Do you not want the ability to download the source and potentially tweak the software? To have a copy you can hold onto forever? To be able to analyze it for telemetry. To be able to potentially submit patches (if you're feeling generous)? Don't you want them to make money? Rather than beg for Github donation scraps? Be especially mindful if you're typing a retort on a Macbook Pro or iPhone and deploying software to GKE or AWS. --- https://faircode.io/ https://faircode.io/ https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/
  - JimDabell 1y ago
    The person I was replying to seemed to be under the impression that n8n used to be open source and now is not. This is not the case, so I pointed that out. Did you have anything to say about my actual comment, or are you just attaching your rant to a random part of the thread?
    - victorhooi 1y ago
      Quoting another poster (wavemode) here... Trivially debunked by looking at their homepage in 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20191009000026/https://n8n.io/ https://web.archive.org/web/20191009000026/https://n8n.io/
      - JimDabell 1y ago
        That archived page doesn’t debunk what I am saying, it supports it. > Open Source Alternative for Zapier/tray.io They claimed to be open source… > (Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause) …but they were not. The Commons Clause means that it isn’t open source. It’s a commercial restriction. The founder directly said this when discussing it here, the day before that archive was saved: > > This is not open source - it is source available. > Yes you are correct. Wrote an extra section about it here in the docs: https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=license https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=license — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21192277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21192277
      - wavemode 1y ago
        No, what I linked to does not show that they used to be open source. It shows that they used to call themselves open source, despite never having been so.
  - bityard 1y ago
    I don't know/care about "fair source," but the "open source" label in particular has ALWAYS had a well-known and specific meaning in the software world. Attaching it to a proprietary product for the marketing and social media good feels is actively deceitful, no matter if the company is USA trillion-dollar Big Tech or a single developer from a marginalized demographic in a developing country. Software authors have the right to choose whatever license they wish for the project/product, just don't try to lie to users about what it really is.

Yet more evidence that venture capital is basically incompatible with open source software. It's just a matter of time before any VC-backed open source company betrays its users.

JimDabell 1y ago

n8n was never open source. They started out using Apache with a non-free clause added, but they called themselves open-source incorrectly. Then when this became more widely known, they stopped calling themselves open-source.

echelon 1y ago
Why is it okay to just accept that the hyperscalers are 100% closed, but the minute a smaller player tries to play "open-ish" with "fair source" we crucify them? Fair source is amazing. You get the code. You can modify the code. You can redistribute the code. You just can't take their business from them and compete with them head-to-head with their product. You can reformulate it into something else, but you can't take their labor and cut their knees off with it. You have literally every other freedom. Why in the hell are so many people against that? Fair source is sustainable and equitable. You get everything except for that one little right with which you could compete with them. Everyone gushes over Obsidian - that's not even "source available" or "fair source". It's completely closed. I bet if Obsidian went "fair source", and you could download the code and compile it yourself, there would be hundreds of voices crawling out of the woodwork to call them the devil for not being pure OSI-approved open. How dare they keep one little freedom to themselves for all the hard work they've done? I'm half convinced the anti-"fair source" voices are deep industry folks who want big tech to own the OSI definition. Who can use it strategically as they sit atop hundreds of billions of dollars in cash flows. Open source to the FAANGMAGMA Gods is just a way of outsourcing labor and dangling trinkets in front of underpaid labor. n8n isn't doing a "VC rug pull." They're trying to be sustainable. The only thing that's been "pulled" is the wool over the eyes of every engineer satisfied with FAANG OSI-approved serfdom. Some of the pieces are "open" all right, but they own pretty much everything the sunlight touches. If n8n can't build a business then it just becomes some side project hobby. What exactly do we think every other company is doing? Please be more pragmatic and realize that "fair source" is sustainable. It rewards the innovators and you get almost everything for free. You just can't shoot them with their own gun. Do you not want the ability to download the source and potentially tweak the software? To have a copy you can hold onto forever? To be able to analyze it for telemetry. To be able to potentially submit patches (if you're feeling generous)? Don't you want them to make money? Rather than beg for Github donation scraps? Be especially mindful if you're typing a retort on a Macbook Pro or iPhone and deploying software to GKE or AWS. --- https://faircode.io/ https://faircode.io/ https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/
- JimDabell 1y ago
  The person I was replying to seemed to be under the impression that n8n used to be open source and now is not. This is not the case, so I pointed that out. Did you have anything to say about my actual comment, or are you just attaching your rant to a random part of the thread?
  - victorhooi 1y ago
    Quoting another poster (wavemode) here... Trivially debunked by looking at their homepage in 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20191009000026/https://n8n.io/ https://web.archive.org/web/20191009000026/https://n8n.io/
    - JimDabell 1y ago
      That archived page doesn’t debunk what I am saying, it supports it. > Open Source Alternative for Zapier/tray.io They claimed to be open source… > (Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause) …but they were not. The Commons Clause means that it isn’t open source. It’s a commercial restriction. The founder directly said this when discussing it here, the day before that archive was saved: > > This is not open source - it is source available. > Yes you are correct. Wrote an extra section about it here in the docs: https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=license https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=license — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21192277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21192277
    - wavemode 1y ago
      No, what I linked to does not show that they used to be open source. It shows that they used to call themselves open source, despite never having been so.
- bityard 1y ago
  I don't know/care about "fair source," but the "open source" label in particular has ALWAYS had a well-known and specific meaning in the software world. Attaching it to a proprietary product for the marketing and social media good feels is actively deceitful, no matter if the company is USA trillion-dollar Big Tech or a single developer from a marginalized demographic in a developing country. Software authors have the right to choose whatever license they wish for the project/product, just don't try to lie to users about what it really is.