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

Saying that the source is "closed" seems a stretch though. Its certainly not free software any more. But even if it doesn't meet the official definition of open either (at least, for 3 years per contribution), there's still a lot of utility to be had.

Proprietary software with code that's viewable is actively harmful. It's worse than being closed. If you read the source, and use it (or a very similar version derived from it) in your code, you're including a copyright violation into your code.

You can still modify the code for personal and business use, as long as you’re not making money off of it, you’re fine. This is far better than it being closed source.

You can make money of it. You just can't use it to run a SaaS based on Sentry. This is a lot narrower than a general "non-compete" with a very minimal "non-commercial" restriction.

You can provide Sentry-as-a-service but you can't do so commercially.

You can use the Sentry code commercially but you can't use it to provide Sentry-as-a-service commercially.

it may prevent me from hiring you, because i can't trust that you don't accidentally use something you learned from that code in your work

Sure- freeware, trialware, and other licenses have a lot of utility too. That doesn't make them "open source" though.

Words have meaning, and trying to change the meaning of open source to benefit corporations is not something I'm willing to get behind.

But this restricts corporations from selling this as a service. Similiar to how some open source liceases require you to provide any modifications if you choose to reuse and modify.

They are still open source because the source is open.

Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.

> They are still open source because the source is open.

That is not the definition of 'Open Source'. Using it interchangeably with 'open source' just adds confusion. And from the other uses of 'open source' in your comment, it seems you're using it in the same sense as 'Open Source'

> Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.

No Open Source license allows you to "do whatever you want". Even the WTFPL, which comes close to that goal, is not an Open Source license. Being Open Source comes with a few requirements, which every Open Source license, licensor, and licensee must fulfill.


Open Source has a definition. It includes things like GPL and MIT- a wide range of options. The BSL is not an open source license.

Well, what is your solution? Have Sentry go bankrupt because AWS takes their service and offers it at a scale Sentry can't?

the solution is to vet the license and consider whether it is compatible with the current Open Source definition.

if it is not, then Sentry needs to consider whether it is important for them to stay Open Source or not.

and, if we see many more cases like this, then maybe it's time that we rethink what the Open Source definition should be.

it looks like neither Open Source, nor Free Software haver put much consideration to this problem yet, and it's time that we look at the implications.

my expectation is that any change in the definition of either will not meet much positive reaction, but i think the discussion is worth having.

Can you identify a single company that's happened to?

No, because they’re dead. Withered on the vine.

So, "source available"?

"source available" but with a built-in mechanism that converts the source to "open source" after 36 months, hence "eventual open source".

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