4 ms·

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 al

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?

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?