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

The BSL is a "have your cake and eat it too" license. It allows a company to accept contributions from third parties, without those third parties being able to use the changes commercially. It's immoral.

The moral equivalent of the BSL is to close-source the software, and to offer free-for-use licenses of the closed-source version. They can continue having a fully open-source release, but the release would be changes from 3 years ago.

Sentry isn't doing this because they want the contributions. They want the benefits of open source, without any of the costs associated with it.




I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that this is immoral.

Sentry is granting you a license, for free, to do anything you want with the software except provide a commercial competitor to their hosted service. People using the software for free may still decide to contribute code. This is not a one-sided relationship here. Both parties are getting something of value.


> People using the software for free may still decide to contribute code. This is not a one-sided relationship here.

If the contributor is not allowed to do something with their work that the receiver is allowed to, is that not one-sided?


One-sided would imply that only one party benefits. You clearly benefit from being able to use and improve software, for free, for practically any purpose.


> You clearly benefit from ...

The benefit you speak of is available to both parties. The benefit I speak of is available to only one.

In Open Source, every party gets all the benefits, all the time.


Alternatively, third parties can volunteer their time to AWS by contributing to open source software!


I don't understand the practical difference of your suggestion.


If they close off the source, they can't accept contributions from 3rd parties.

Also, the closed-source code not being viewable makes it more likely that folks won't accidentally introduce copyright violations into their code, which frequently happens when proprietary code is put into github.

In either case, the code is closed-source, but BSL allows them to accept free code from volunteers without providing it back to them for 3 years.


It also allows users to modify the source and run it on their own systems.

You're suggesting a strictly worse outcome for the majority of people (users, and sentry) in the name of purity.




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

Search: