Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don’t propose we do that. Open means open.

If you don’t want it to be open, don’t make your code open. (It’s not open by default.) If you do, don’t be surprised or dismayed when someone takes you up on the offer you created.




>I don’t propose we do that. Open means open.

I don't think we need software Manichaeism. Software can be as open or closed as anyone likes with many degrees in between.

It is preferable for everyone to have software that is relatively permissive but has barriers in place as to not run into a tragedy-of-the-commons like situation where large companies simply take the code of small innovators wholesale and profit off their work without contributing back. License extremism is silly.

Why would we be better off if sentry completely closed down their source code, thus robbing everyone of running and using sentry themselves?


Not all use of code is just running it as is. Sometimes you want to take a pice of it and use just that in your system. Maybe you want to fork it and do your own thing with it. You can do that and all the other things you can think of with open source, not with BSL (or you would need army of lawyers).

BSL is just better proprietary licence. It definitively isn't open source. I think of it as better way to do shareware. But there is big difference between shareware and open source and we don't want to muddy it.


I don't see how you need an army of lawyers to fork or modify sentry code as long as you don't run a service that is competition to sentry.io.

If all you do is use sentry internally (which is a major use case for this particular piece of software) you can do what you want. This is not at all close to a proprietary license.


So if I take few hundred lines of their code, and put them in my product.

Can I sell this product as SaaS ? Can I put that code in a library that would be usable by SaaS product ? Who decides if it competes with sentries ? How about if sentry suddenly adds functionality it didn't have before, so now it competes and before it didn't.

Or maybe they don't get to do their IPO and are bought out by oracle(or similar). And their lawyers smell an opportunity ?

If this code would be any other standard open source licence the answers is simple. I don't even have to ask anyone.

But sure if I wanted to use it mostly like flexible shareware internally I can do that.


As they pretty clearly articulated in the article, they want their code to be open to the extent to allow people to host it themselves and make changes to it as they need, but not so open that they can sell it and make money from it.

I think that's a fair decision for them to make and license their code accordingly.

They said very explicitly in the article that this is technically not "open source"


If they started that way, it would be totally fair. Given that they didn’t, it’s somewhat off putting but still within their rights.

I do disagree with the use of “technically” in the last line. It’s simply “not open source” (which is, of course, fine).


> If you don’t want open, don’t make your code open.

There are more things than the extremes.


This is pretty extreme though- three years is a lifetime in the software world, and the original codebase being open source means you likely accepted a lot of code from people who thought they were contributing to an open source project.


All of the code you contributed before this change remains open source. You’re free to fork the project.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: