5 ms·

Shame it's not FOSS. There's still https://www.windmill.dev/ https://www.windmill.dev/ though.

bsnnkv 1y ago
This comment got me digging, n8n actually has a pretty good post-open source license[1] - I'm glad to see more successful examples of this sort of licensing in the wild [1]: https://docs.n8n.io/sustainable-use-license/ https://docs.n8n.io/sustainable-use-license/
- poly2it 1y ago
  It's great and all that their business strategy is working out, but anyone looking to use a FOSS solution isn't going to care at all. This is basically just allowing self-hosting of a third-party's cloud, which is an improvement over traditional SaaS, but shouldn't dilute the FOSS label.
  - bsnnkv 1y ago
    > but shouldn't dilute the FOSS label This is such a strange thing to post in response to a link which states: > Although n8n's source code is available under the Sustainable Use License, according to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), open source licenses can't include limitations on use, so we do not call ourselves open source.
    - poly2it 1y ago
      I don't think it's strange at all. These licenses obviously have rhetoric reminiscent of FOSS licenses. These companies just don't want to call their technology proprietary.
      - bsnnkv 1y ago
        I'm not sure what else you and others who make these kinds of comments are looking for from projects like these who are already explicitly and clearly stating that they are _not_ FOSS projects It's as if you don't want source code to be available _at all_ unless it's under a FOSS license
        cmsj 1y ago
        Surely the goal is to ensure that there is no erosion of FOSS as a concept? The existence and growth of FOSS is something that has happened as a result of considerable advocacy, and while its broad success has become somewhat self-sustaining, there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms. It's not a bad thing to push for "source available" to be considered as not going far enough, and to not let it supplant FOSS through purely pragmatic concerns.
        bsnnkv 1y ago
        > there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms There is something off about this to me in a world where FOSS exists in it's present form primarily to the outsized benefit of hyperscalers and entrenched incumbents There was a post on another forum earlier this week on this same broad topic which resonated deeply with me, as someone (who like most of the US population) is a layoff and a medical emergency away from ruin: > When I started getting interested in open source, I had problems like unreliable software, the inability to inspect or improve it, limited experience with collaborating. Open source solved those, but now my most pressing problem is that the excellent software I use is undermaintained and outright abandoned because the creators can't afford to keep donating time to it. Open source has been a process for solving problems, not the end goal. If it's not capable of solving problems, it's time for new approaches.[1] [1]: https://lobste.rs/c/d4kmra https://lobste.rs/c/d4kmra
        Lutger 1y ago
        Look at the other comments, one states "Oh, it's open (core) source." Not exactly the fault of n8n, but the confusion is there to clear up. That is all I'm reading into it.
        JimDabell 1y ago
        > Not exactly the fault of n8n They did start out by incorrectly calling themselves open-source, but to their credit they stopped doing that and have been very clear ever since.
    - adastra22 1y ago
      They only added that qualification after huge community backlash. Last time I looked they still called themselves open source despite that claim.
  - greenavocado 1y ago
    Sir, this is a VC forum for people that are trying to make money
    - turnsout 1y ago
      Too real
    - sixtyj 1y ago
      And I thought that we do everything for prestige /s
    - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
      So, a forum full of people who will be very much affected by restrictions on commercial use?
- blitzar 1y ago
  How much equity did they kick back to the devs from the open source era?
  - bsnnkv 1y ago
    As much as I appreciate a good snarky comment, this is a good reminder for contributors to be thoughtful about the licenses under which they contribute code to projects > Nowhere in any common open license does anyone promise to keep working on their project, much less on particular terms. Any contributor to a permissively-licensed project can license their next contribution however they want. Any steward of a copyleft project with rights to all contributions can, too. Much as you could pick an Apache-licensed project, fork it, and sell your enhanced version under proprietary terms, a project steward can share new work under new terms, as well. > > None of this changes the license terms for old releases. Prior versions with MIT or Apache 2 or MPLv2 or what have you in the LICENSE file remain available to use, share, and change under those terms. That includes forking. We see that every time a going-forward relicensing spawns a new one. The reason the new license terms matter for new releases is that those new license terms apply to the diff between the old release and the new one.[1] [1]: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/23/Two-Kinds-Relicensing https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/23/Two-Kinds-Relicens...
- philipwhiuk 1y ago
  "post-open source license" That's a terrible reimagining, subtlying implying that open-source is old and past it. It's a pre-open source license. They've not quite made the bar.
  - cap11235 1y ago
    It's a license that tastes like the usual embrace, extend, extinguish.
  - bsnnkv 1y ago
    > subtlying implying that open-source is old and past it It's really not that deep; U2 and Mogwai exist in the same timeline, in the same shared canon of contemporary music. > It's a pre-open source license This statement is strictly ahistorical; the earliest software licenses which made source code available to everyone and included restrictions on redistribution and/or use date back to the late 1990s[1][2]. You can certainly _try_ to make the case that these are the same as the Xerox license, but I don't think it would be a very strong one. [1]: https://spdx.org/licenses/Aladdin.html https://spdx.org/licenses/Aladdin.html [2]: https://spdx.org/licenses/QPL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/QPL-1.0.html
- sneak 1y ago
  The term you are looking for is “source available” license.
  - bsnnkv 1y ago
    Maybe we can solve the "free" vs "libre" vs "open" debate first
    - sneak 1y ago
      There’s no debate. These terms were completely settled more than a decade ago.
raffael_de 1y ago
Are you referring to the license? Cause the source seems to be open as in "available on GitHub".
- viraptor 1y ago
  That's not what open source means. Open source licences are well defined and listed here https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses With extra restrictions, n8n is at most "source available".
  - raffael_de 1y ago
    Okay, you're referring to the license. Got it.
  - dahart 1y ago
    Open source does mean source available to many people, especially the non-programmer lay-public, no matter how much OSI and people who adopt OSI’s definition dislike it, c.f. the dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source (And BTW I like OSI’s definition!) Instead of claiming the words “open source” always mean OSI’s definition, it’d be better to clarify up front that you’re talking about OSI’s “Open Source Definition”, which is (effectively) a trademark or term of art and does not preempt all possible definitions of the phrase. (Special note that the words “open source” do not always refer to code.) The turf battle over the words free and open seems silly to me, with both sides arguing that the other side’s word literally means something other than they intend. Stallman has argued that open means source available, and OSI has argued that free means price. Both sides are right, and both sides are stubborn too.
    - jauntywundrkind 1y ago
      Source available but you can't use it professionally or commercially doesn't feel open source at all to me, and I disapprove of trying to weasel word around that. Rather than clarify confusion & raise a real and important distinction, this post carries water for obfuscation and confusion: if people aren't clear the answer isn't to loosen the definition, it's to make the distinction clearer.
nextworddev 1y ago
What’s with the windmill plug? It’s not even the same cateogry
- testycool 1y ago
  I also prefer Windmill. A category they both fall into is workflow automation. n8n is useful when collaborating with non-coding colleagues.
  - nextworddev 1y ago
    [flagged]
brunoqc 1y ago
windmill is open-core.
- kristopherleads 1y ago
  Is open-core a sub-genre of post-hardcore? I generally prefer midwest emo, to be honest.
moralestapia 1y ago
If we're being strict, Windmill is also not FOSS. This is not an argument in favor of n8n.
- JimDabell 1y ago
  If you clone the Windmill source from GitHub and build it, that’s AGPL. If you enable the enterprise feature flag or use the Docker image, the result is source available. I think it’s fair to call Windmill open source. It’s using the open core model for commercialisation. Just because you publish open source it doesn’t obligate you to make all the code you write open source.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
k__ 1y ago
A few days ago I looked into n8n and saw that people are switching to node-red. Are these projects comparable?
- kristopherleads 1y ago
  Full disclosure, I'm incredibly biased here as I'm a DevRel at FlowFuse, but there's a reason I joined them instead of n8n. On the surface they're comparable, but I think Node-RED (and FlowFuse) is a better solution for a lot of reasons: First off, Node-RED handles real-time event data much, much better in my experience. Because of where Node-RED came from, there's much better support for IoT, MQTT, Modbus, OPC UA, edge protocols, etc. n8n is much more limited in this regard, and the fact that the Node-RED and FlowFuse community has literally thousands of custom nodes makes the calculus pretty clear. I also think that FlowFuse/Node-RED has better integration of AI workloads. In theory n8n is designed around AI, but it treats it the same way OpenAI's AgentKit does - as sort of opaque connections. FlowFuse/Node-RED instead treats it as an actual message payload (both in terms of how you connect to the APIs and how you interact with what's generated), so instead of throwing your request into the void and hoping for the best, you can control every minute part of the flow. That also makes for much more transparent debugging and visual data flow - the whole idea of these low-code environments is to give you the same control as high-code without the headache. Abstracting that away too much gives you less control, which is sort of the antithesis of this approach. Like I said though, SUPER biased here.
  - cap11235 1y ago
    I'm not legally biased similarly (work in finance), and I prefer NodeRED. To me, the black box thing is very significant in the feel of using the tool. When I work on a N8N workflow, it feels like I'm chaining gmail filters. Where as NodeRED, I can mentally map that better to what is actually being run, and so feels more like using ComfyUI's custom node capability. I feel like N8N wants to be no-code, where as NodeRED is very much low-code and embraces that, which I find to be the right balance for me for control vs convenience.
    - 1y ago
CodeCompost 1y ago
Can you give me more information about your experience with it?

This comment got me digging, n8n actually has a pretty good post-open source license[1] - I'm glad to see more successful examples of this sort of licensing in the wild [1]: https://docs.n8n.io/sustainable-use-license/ https://docs.n8n.io/sustainable-use-license/

poly2it 1y ago
It's great and all that their business strategy is working out, but anyone looking to use a FOSS solution isn't going to care at all. This is basically just allowing self-hosting of a third-party's cloud, which is an improvement over traditional SaaS, but shouldn't dilute the FOSS label.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  > but shouldn't dilute the FOSS label This is such a strange thing to post in response to a link which states: > Although n8n's source code is available under the Sustainable Use License, according to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), open source licenses can't include limitations on use, so we do not call ourselves open source.
  - poly2it 1y ago
    I don't think it's strange at all. These licenses obviously have rhetoric reminiscent of FOSS licenses. These companies just don't want to call their technology proprietary.
    - bsnnkv 1y ago
      I'm not sure what else you and others who make these kinds of comments are looking for from projects like these who are already explicitly and clearly stating that they are _not_ FOSS projects It's as if you don't want source code to be available _at all_ unless it's under a FOSS license
      - cmsj 1y ago
        Surely the goal is to ensure that there is no erosion of FOSS as a concept? The existence and growth of FOSS is something that has happened as a result of considerable advocacy, and while its broad success has become somewhat self-sustaining, there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms. It's not a bad thing to push for "source available" to be considered as not going far enough, and to not let it supplant FOSS through purely pragmatic concerns.
        bsnnkv 1y ago
        > there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms There is something off about this to me in a world where FOSS exists in it's present form primarily to the outsized benefit of hyperscalers and entrenched incumbents There was a post on another forum earlier this week on this same broad topic which resonated deeply with me, as someone (who like most of the US population) is a layoff and a medical emergency away from ruin: > When I started getting interested in open source, I had problems like unreliable software, the inability to inspect or improve it, limited experience with collaborating. Open source solved those, but now my most pressing problem is that the excellent software I use is undermaintained and outright abandoned because the creators can't afford to keep donating time to it. Open source has been a process for solving problems, not the end goal. If it's not capable of solving problems, it's time for new approaches.[1] [1]: https://lobste.rs/c/d4kmra https://lobste.rs/c/d4kmra
      - Lutger 1y ago
        Look at the other comments, one states "Oh, it's open (core) source." Not exactly the fault of n8n, but the confusion is there to clear up. That is all I'm reading into it.
        JimDabell 1y ago
        > Not exactly the fault of n8n They did start out by incorrectly calling themselves open-source, but to their credit they stopped doing that and have been very clear ever since.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    They only added that qualification after huge community backlash. Last time I looked they still called themselves open source despite that claim.
- greenavocado 1y ago
  Sir, this is a VC forum for people that are trying to make money
  - turnsout 1y ago
    Too real
  - sixtyj 1y ago
    And I thought that we do everything for prestige /s
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    So, a forum full of people who will be very much affected by restrictions on commercial use?
blitzar 1y ago
How much equity did they kick back to the devs from the open source era?
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  As much as I appreciate a good snarky comment, this is a good reminder for contributors to be thoughtful about the licenses under which they contribute code to projects > Nowhere in any common open license does anyone promise to keep working on their project, much less on particular terms. Any contributor to a permissively-licensed project can license their next contribution however they want. Any steward of a copyleft project with rights to all contributions can, too. Much as you could pick an Apache-licensed project, fork it, and sell your enhanced version under proprietary terms, a project steward can share new work under new terms, as well. > > None of this changes the license terms for old releases. Prior versions with MIT or Apache 2 or MPLv2 or what have you in the LICENSE file remain available to use, share, and change under those terms. That includes forking. We see that every time a going-forward relicensing spawns a new one. The reason the new license terms matter for new releases is that those new license terms apply to the diff between the old release and the new one.[1] [1]: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/23/Two-Kinds-Relicensing https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/23/Two-Kinds-Relicens...
philipwhiuk 1y ago
"post-open source license" That's a terrible reimagining, subtlying implying that open-source is old and past it. It's a pre-open source license. They've not quite made the bar.
- cap11235 1y ago
  It's a license that tastes like the usual embrace, extend, extinguish.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  > subtlying implying that open-source is old and past it It's really not that deep; U2 and Mogwai exist in the same timeline, in the same shared canon of contemporary music. > It's a pre-open source license This statement is strictly ahistorical; the earliest software licenses which made source code available to everyone and included restrictions on redistribution and/or use date back to the late 1990s[1][2]. You can certainly _try_ to make the case that these are the same as the Xerox license, but I don't think it would be a very strong one. [1]: https://spdx.org/licenses/Aladdin.html https://spdx.org/licenses/Aladdin.html [2]: https://spdx.org/licenses/QPL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/QPL-1.0.html
sneak 1y ago
The term you are looking for is “source available” license.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  Maybe we can solve the "free" vs "libre" vs "open" debate first
  - sneak 1y ago
    There’s no debate. These terms were completely settled more than a decade ago.

raffael_de 1y ago

Are you referring to the license? Cause the source seems to be open as in "available on GitHub".

viraptor 1y ago
That's not what open source means. Open source licences are well defined and listed here https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses With extra restrictions, n8n is at most "source available".
- raffael_de 1y ago
  Okay, you're referring to the license. Got it.
- dahart 1y ago
  Open source does mean source available to many people, especially the non-programmer lay-public, no matter how much OSI and people who adopt OSI’s definition dislike it, c.f. the dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source (And BTW I like OSI’s definition!) Instead of claiming the words “open source” always mean OSI’s definition, it’d be better to clarify up front that you’re talking about OSI’s “Open Source Definition”, which is (effectively) a trademark or term of art and does not preempt all possible definitions of the phrase. (Special note that the words “open source” do not always refer to code.) The turf battle over the words free and open seems silly to me, with both sides arguing that the other side’s word literally means something other than they intend. Stallman has argued that open means source available, and OSI has argued that free means price. Both sides are right, and both sides are stubborn too.
  - jauntywundrkind 1y ago
    Source available but you can't use it professionally or commercially doesn't feel open source at all to me, and I disapprove of trying to weasel word around that. Rather than clarify confusion & raise a real and important distinction, this post carries water for obfuscation and confusion: if people aren't clear the answer isn't to loosen the definition, it's to make the distinction clearer.

nextworddev 1y ago

What’s with the windmill plug? It’s not even the same cateogry

testycool 1y ago
I also prefer Windmill. A category they both fall into is workflow automation. n8n is useful when collaborating with non-coding colleagues.
- nextworddev 1y ago
  [flagged]

brunoqc 1y ago

windmill is open-core.

kristopherleads 1y ago
Is open-core a sub-genre of post-hardcore? I generally prefer midwest emo, to be honest.

moralestapia 1y ago

If we're being strict, Windmill is also not FOSS. This is not an argument in favor of n8n.

JimDabell 1y ago
If you clone the Windmill source from GitHub and build it, that’s AGPL. If you enable the enterprise feature flag or use the Docker image, the result is source available. I think it’s fair to call Windmill open source. It’s using the open core model for commercialisation. Just because you publish open source it doesn’t obligate you to make all the code you write open source.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

k__ 1y ago

A few days ago I looked into n8n and saw that people are switching to node-red. Are these projects comparable?

kristopherleads 1y ago
Full disclosure, I'm incredibly biased here as I'm a DevRel at FlowFuse, but there's a reason I joined them instead of n8n. On the surface they're comparable, but I think Node-RED (and FlowFuse) is a better solution for a lot of reasons: First off, Node-RED handles real-time event data much, much better in my experience. Because of where Node-RED came from, there's much better support for IoT, MQTT, Modbus, OPC UA, edge protocols, etc. n8n is much more limited in this regard, and the fact that the Node-RED and FlowFuse community has literally thousands of custom nodes makes the calculus pretty clear. I also think that FlowFuse/Node-RED has better integration of AI workloads. In theory n8n is designed around AI, but it treats it the same way OpenAI's AgentKit does - as sort of opaque connections. FlowFuse/Node-RED instead treats it as an actual message payload (both in terms of how you connect to the APIs and how you interact with what's generated), so instead of throwing your request into the void and hoping for the best, you can control every minute part of the flow. That also makes for much more transparent debugging and visual data flow - the whole idea of these low-code environments is to give you the same control as high-code without the headache. Abstracting that away too much gives you less control, which is sort of the antithesis of this approach. Like I said though, SUPER biased here.
- cap11235 1y ago
  I'm not legally biased similarly (work in finance), and I prefer NodeRED. To me, the black box thing is very significant in the feel of using the tool. When I work on a N8N workflow, it feels like I'm chaining gmail filters. Where as NodeRED, I can mentally map that better to what is actually being run, and so feels more like using ComfyUI's custom node capability. I feel like N8N wants to be no-code, where as NodeRED is very much low-code and embraces that, which I find to be the right balance for me for control vs convenience.
  - 1y ago

CodeCompost 1y ago

Can you give me more information about your experience with it?