7 ms·

Indeed, the probability of this being discontinued, if it follows normal trends, is dramatically higher than pretty much any Google product, and worse the notio

by personZ 12y ago

Indeed, the probability of this being discontinued, if it follows normal trends, is dramatically higher than pretty much any Google product, and worse the notion that the "product is their focus" is specious: getting investment cash or a buyout is their focus, as it is with virtually all startups. Moralizing or taking shots at competitors is a dangerous tactic when you live in a glass house.

GuiA 12y ago
> Moralizing or taking shots at competitors is a dangerous tactic when you live in a glass house. Especially when you all live in the same glass house.
pfraze 12y ago
FWIW, inboxapp is self-hosted and under AGPL, so it's forkable.
- bugsbunnyak 12y ago
  AGPL with Contributor License Agreement, just to be crystal clear.
  - spicyj 12y ago
    Presumably you need to sign the CLA only to contribute back to the master branch.
    - grinich 12y ago
      Yep.
  - slgeorge 12y ago
    In fairness they're a new company and probably only have a basic view on how they're going to make money. They just licensed their core code under 'free software' so it makes sense for them to have a CLA. It will give them some flexibility as they figure out their commercial path - though I can't actually find the CLA on their site. Anyway, in comparison good luck finding a 'free software' license for the Gmail API, or a CLA - and that's from a company that's benefited from Open Source more than any other.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    Is this viral like the gpl? Does the use of the inbox backend, hosted by me, require release of the full source to the entire app that uses the inbox backend? My brief reading of the agpl seems to say yes. Which makes this an interesting toy but nothing more...
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Yes, the AGPL does require the release of the source of any code built on components licensed under it. Chances are they'll have a commercial license, though my salary disputes your assertion that an AGPL base can only be used as a toy - we have contracts with some of the largest companies in my country.
alexqgb 12y ago
Yes. See Sparrow for details / confirmation.
PeterGriffin 12y ago
I'm an idiot, but I'm willing to believe there are still people out there who love what they do, and would stand by it, even if Corporation X comes knocking on the door with a pot of gold. I'd rather cheer for them and be disappointed, than dismiss them in advance and live my life perceiving the world through a cynical lens. Huh. I didn't know I can write so dramatically. You catch my drift, though.
- kbenson 12y ago
  I think the point the parent comments are trying to make, factually correct or not, is that it's not entirely within the control of the people/company developing the product to determine whether they accept a buy-out if they have accepted outside money. It's not cynicism to point out when people make statements they may not have the ability to back up. Whether that's actually the case is less clear to me though, after following some of the other comments from the developers here.
  - grinich 12y ago
    Working on a problem you care deeply about with great people is already a pot of gold. It's something that money literally cannot buy, and much harder to create than than cash in one's bank account. And as for control, maybe I should just say it explicitly: we have raised investment but are still in full control of the company (aside: it'd be nuts if we weren't at the stage), and plan to keep it that way going forward. In fact, our investors decided to invest explicitly because they believe our team is the best able to make decisions on growing a sustainable business and solving the developer platform challenges. No matter how good the VC, they obviously don't have the background+skills+focus to design APIs (and likewise shouldn't). One of our investors likes to say, "We're in your corner, but not in your kitchen," which I've always thought framed the relationship well. I know there's lots of cynicism in the tech world with buyouts/acqui-hires and swarmy VCs, so I can understand where this reaction comes from. And unfortunately I don't have a solid rebuttal other than saying "trust me" with the test of time. Clearly that doesn't work for the HN skeptics. :/ It's also worth pointing out that not all acquisitions are terrible. Google Docs came from an acquisition. So did Google Earth. Facebook continues to run Parse, and Instagram, and Beluga via FB Messenger. Sometimes these acquisitions legitimately make sense, but I think the important thing is keeping the right people in positions to make those decisions when the time comes, and not the people who are just looking for the immediate financial return.

by personZ 12y ago

GuiA 12y ago

> Moralizing or taking shots at competitors is a dangerous tactic when you live in a glass house. Especially when you all live in the same glass house.

pfraze 12y ago

FWIW, inboxapp is self-hosted and under AGPL, so it's forkable.

bugsbunnyak 12y ago
AGPL with Contributor License Agreement, just to be crystal clear.
- spicyj 12y ago
  Presumably you need to sign the CLA only to contribute back to the master branch.
  - grinich 12y ago
    Yep.
- slgeorge 12y ago
  In fairness they're a new company and probably only have a basic view on how they're going to make money. They just licensed their core code under 'free software' so it makes sense for them to have a CLA. It will give them some flexibility as they figure out their commercial path - though I can't actually find the CLA on their site. Anyway, in comparison good luck finding a 'free software' license for the Gmail API, or a CLA - and that's from a company that's benefited from Open Source more than any other.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Is this viral like the gpl? Does the use of the inbox backend, hosted by me, require release of the full source to the entire app that uses the inbox backend? My brief reading of the agpl seems to say yes. Which makes this an interesting toy but nothing more...
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Yes, the AGPL does require the release of the source of any code built on components licensed under it. Chances are they'll have a commercial license, though my salary disputes your assertion that an AGPL base can only be used as a toy - we have contracts with some of the largest companies in my country.

alexqgb 12y ago

Yes. See Sparrow for details / confirmation.

PeterGriffin 12y ago

I'm an idiot, but I'm willing to believe there are still people out there who love what they do, and would stand by it, even if Corporation X comes knocking on the door with a pot of gold. I'd rather cheer for them and be disappointed, than dismiss them in advance and live my life perceiving the world through a cynical lens. Huh. I didn't know I can write so dramatically. You catch my drift, though.

kbenson 12y ago
I think the point the parent comments are trying to make, factually correct or not, is that it's not entirely within the control of the people/company developing the product to determine whether they accept a buy-out if they have accepted outside money. It's not cynicism to point out when people make statements they may not have the ability to back up. Whether that's actually the case is less clear to me though, after following some of the other comments from the developers here.
- grinich 12y ago
  Working on a problem you care deeply about with great people is already a pot of gold. It's something that money literally cannot buy, and much harder to create than than cash in one's bank account. And as for control, maybe I should just say it explicitly: we have raised investment but are still in full control of the company (aside: it'd be nuts if we weren't at the stage), and plan to keep it that way going forward. In fact, our investors decided to invest explicitly because they believe our team is the best able to make decisions on growing a sustainable business and solving the developer platform challenges. No matter how good the VC, they obviously don't have the background+skills+focus to design APIs (and likewise shouldn't). One of our investors likes to say, "We're in your corner, but not in your kitchen," which I've always thought framed the relationship well. I know there's lots of cynicism in the tech world with buyouts/acqui-hires and swarmy VCs, so I can understand where this reaction comes from. And unfortunately I don't have a solid rebuttal other than saying "trust me" with the test of time. Clearly that doesn't work for the HN skeptics. :/ It's also worth pointing out that not all acquisitions are terrible. Google Docs came from an acquisition. So did Google Earth. Facebook continues to run Parse, and Instagram, and Beluga via FB Messenger. Sometimes these acquisitions legitimately make sense, but I think the important thing is keeping the right people in positions to make those decisions when the time comes, and not the people who are just looking for the immediate financial return.