Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sir_Cmpwn | Hacker News Reader

https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=why-do-you-call-n8n-open-source...

Don't lie about being open source. That's what you're doing: lying.

https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/30/Its-not-okay-to-pretend-y...

Bullshit. You are being a bad actor in the technology ecosystem and I'm calling you out for it. This behavior is completely and utterly unacceptable. You're gaslighting the open source software community. You may be doublethinking your way into being able to sleep at night, but at the end of the day this is an abhorrent thing for you to do. Even the proponents of the commons clause acknowledge that it's not open source.

Cut it out.

Your software is "source available" and that's fine. What's not fine is gaslighting your users.

View on HN

We've taken 'open source' out of the title above, but it's pretty shocking to see you breaking the site guidelines like this. Worse, you've done it repeatedly before. I realize you're passionate on this topic and I appreciate your many positive contributions to HN over the years, but what are we supposed to tell people when we ban them for posting like this and they point to comments like these and say "Why is it ok when ddevault does it" and accuse us of favoritism?

Can you please just take the spirit of this site to heart and make your substantive points in a kind and thoughtful way from now on? It's not hard to do that if you want to. Yes it means giving up some emotional intensity and the relief of venting at something you dislike—but in return, the persuasive power of your comments will increase, and you won't be toxifying a community that you value enough to be part of.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Is HN's official position that the definition of the term "open source" is universally agreed upon as 100% matching the OSI definition? If so that's news to me. Maybe I really am out of touch.

It is almost universally accepted as correct. ESR coined the term, and agrees. Bruce Perens agrees. All of Debian agrees. Red Hat agrees. The Linux Journal agreed. LWN agrees. There is no room for ambiguity, as far as I can tell.

You do seem to be out of touch, on this issue at least.

EDIT: Put Linux Journal in past tense, as it no longer is running.

Certainly not. But when there's a way to take a flamewar off the table by finessing a title somehow, we do.

That's a bit of a relief. Thanks for the clarification.

I think it’s fine to debate licensing and have a good discussion what constitutes free and open source software.

BUT I’m really shocked by this and other abusive comments that you made here.

I’m using the software and even contributing to it. I’m aware of it’s license and ok with it.

I am also aware that others might have issues with the licensing and might not contribute. Everyone is free to decide - that’s fine!

However, insulting the author and accusing him of deception is just wrong.

The author wants to contribute something to the community and is by no means an expert on licensing. He has clearly explained his rationale / fear and was is very open to feedback.

With your expertise you could have provided constructive feedback and maybe helped to eventually move the project to a better license. You chose otherwise.

Every time it’s sad to see this kind of behavior eventually driving people away from building things and contributing to other projects.

It's no skin off my back when someone makes non-OSS/nonfree software. I won't use it, but that's a choice they can make. It doesn't bother me that you or anyone else would want to contribute to such a project, either.

What I won't stand for is lying about that software's status as open source. He may not be an expert on licensing but he's had it explained to him by experts and chooses to continue lying. That's not acceptable behavior.

>Every time it’s sad to see this kind of behavior eventually driving people away from building things and contributing to other projects.

It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives.

> What I won't stand for is lying about that software's status as open source. He may not be an expert on licensing but he's had it explained to him by experts and chooses to continue lying. That's not acceptable behavior.

How do you know this? What makes you assume that following the poll he won’t change the wording? Maybe even the license?

Why do you still accuse him of lying? Maybe it’s just an honest mistake?

In dubio pro reo, right?

> It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives.

I disagree. We need to be respectful in the way we interact with each other. Proper social intercourse is more important than the the topics we discuss.

I think everyone sees and respects how you feel about free / open source licensing.

Why can’t you just be a little bit more respectful towards the choices and opinions of others?

> It's even worse to see projects like this misleading contributors into giving to a project which isn't even open source in the first place and asks for more than it gives.

Sorry, can you elaborate? I invested probably around 1 year in writing n8n and I allow now everybody to use it for free (with the limitations discussed). I assume that over 90% of the people use it and I do not receive a single Pull-Request or Dollar (which is fine and I am totally OK with) and of the other 9% I guess they spend between a few hours to maybe a week in total in contributions (again also fine). Then there is probably less than 1% which does more than that. How am I asking for more than I give?

You're asking for more of contributors than you give back to them. You ask them for their work but then you and you alone reap all of the financial benfits.

Sorry still do not understand. So you are saying that I screw over a person which uses n8n (else he would probably not contribute anyway), for whom I assume n8n is in some way helpful (so makes his life easier, saves him time, the company makes more money, ...), who can use all the code I wrote for free? And just because he contributed some code and I do not allow other people (which is in 99.999%, not the contributor) to make money directly with n8n?

I didn't say you screwed them over. I said you take their patch and use it to create value that you deny to the contributor. I'm not weaseling words here.

Some contributors will be okay with that. But some won't be - and you're misleading them by telling them that it's open source when it's not. When something is called "open source", it's assumed to meet a certain criteria - the OSD - and can be used as a mental shortcut. When someone sees that your software is "open source", they'll probably believe you - but it's not. You're taking advantage of that.

Sorry english it not my native language. Thought that is kind of an OK short version of "asking for more of contributors than you give back to them". Did not want to weasel your words (hope I did at least use that correctly)!

I tried (apparently not successfuly) to write everywhere very clearly that the Commons Clause got applied and if somebody contributes to it he would normally have spend some time with the project and he should be aware of the license situation. Would never have expected that somebody would find out later that it is not the case and he would then be upset about it. But thanks, not sure that it would happen but still one more thing for me to consider (as you are right that it could happen).

Counterpoint: I've been employed to work on liberally licensed software for many years. In my experience, the idea of "open source" exists on a spectrum.

Open source is important to different people for different reasons. For some it's about code quality or security. For others it's an escape hatch from vendor lock-in. For others it's a moral issue. To each their own, but I think the term is heavily overloaded. That genie is simply out of the bottle, for better or worse.

I think the author goes through great lengths to clarify their position. They use "open source" to communicate something that is accurate for the vast majority of people who would be interested in this software, which I would guess is mostly people interested in avoiding vendor lock-in. For those who have a reason to be concerned about the details, it's made very obvious what the restrictions are.

Also, you're assuming a ton about the author's intent here.

EDIT: Also, I think the term "source available" in this context would cause far more people confusion/lead them to a false idea of how this project is licensed than saying "open source" does.

Academia is notorious for being bad on software licensing, and is not a model to emulate. "Liberally licensed" is a false flag.

I have been using and contributing and publishing open source software (and source available software) since 2004. The first time I heard of the OSI and OSD was in 2017. For years I thought open source simply meant the source code was public.

I would not be surprised if > 50% of the global developer population is unaware of the OSI or OSD. The fact that most public GitHub projects have no license certainly should have us questioning levels of awareness.

I do agree this project should change the language on the homepage, especially as they receive feedback in this thread. However, I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt before we assume they are acting in bad faith.

Honestly did not expect that people care THAT much about that. I simply fear that it confuses way more people than it helps. I myself have no idea at all what the term "source-available" really means and I assume that is the case for the most people.

But also think debatting right now further about it would not really help. Will think about it at least a night (maybe more) to make a decision. Advice also the other side to do the same to see and understand my side. If the decision is that I change it. Everything is solved anyway. If my decision is to keep it we can proceed here:

https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40

Honestly, I expected some issues because of calling it "Open Source" (even though I did not expect this level, it sounds like I am the antichrist). I extra mention everywhere that the Commons Clause is attached, wrote a special section in the docs about it and even put Open Source additionally in quotes. I am sorry that it upsets you but I wrote, why I did it, in the docs and I think that are viable points. I can also understand your point. If I would write Open Source and people would not allow to use it for free I would even agree but for now, I stand by my decision.

I am however open. I created that poll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195516

The people can vote what they think. If a reasonable amount of people participates (let's say 100) and they say I should stop I will change all the texts.

> I extra mention everywhere that the Commons Clause is attached, wrote a special section in the docs about it and even put Open Source additionally in quotes

Screenshots of the home page:

https://sr.ht/Rccz.png

https://sr.ht/VxP-.png

No quotes here. You're apropriating the language of open source ("free and open source" is also a key phrase people will recognize and make assumptions from) to describe software you know isn't. In order to know that this page is bullshit, you have to come here already knowing that "Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause" is not open source. The (awful) license apropriates the "Apache 2.0" name, which is a respected and well known open source license, and aporopriates the language of "Creative Commons", likewise respected and well-known to mean something entirely different from this. Someone who isn't informed about this problem could easily mistake this project for open source. You're deliberately taking advantage of this to gaslight the open source software community.

Your software is source-available. Call it that. If you're ashamed to do so then maybe you've chosen a shitty license. You know that you're lying about "open source". You've admitted as much yourself.

The authors of the Commons Clause themselves acknoweldge that it's not open source.

> I created that poll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195516

The issue I filed here also includes 11 votes against at the time of writing:

https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40

Setting an arbitrarily high bar of 100 votes for a poll which will never leave /new is just more gaslighting. What's your problem, man?

I'd be careful about reading too much into the results of that poll, or the number of upvotes on the github issue. The people who disagree with you are far more incentivized to vote than those who agree as well as those who are neutral.

Thanks a lot! Yes agree but the fact that they care very much and the other group way less is a sign that I should change it if I can resolve the situation like that. Why not make them "happy" If I have the chance?

The only reason I am hesitating is that I fear to confuse more people than I help. If people (including myself) would know what (actually had to look up the term again) "source-available" means I would have used it from the start. But nobody does. So the question is, is it worth confusing a big group of none-vocal-people to make a small group of vocal-people happy? But I can understand definitely understand their point. So have to decide on that the next days.

Jump off your high horse @Sir_Cmpwn - your definition of open source did not come from the heavens. If the majority of people are happy to accept that n8n is open source, thats the end of it. Accusing him of lying is a bit aggressive.

My definition of open source is the definition of open source. This is a fact. If you are gaslighting people to believe otherwise you are an enemy of the open source community.

Do you really believe that the only definition of "open source" that any honest person is referring to when they use the term is the exact definition that you subscribe to?

Yes. The definition is clearly stated. I don't believe that someone can't be mistaken or ignorant, and I don't blame them for this - but once corrected, their tune needs to change. Less than that constitutes an attack on open source, because it's deliberately dilluting the term to broaden it to include software which is clearly not.

Clearly stated by one organization. Everyone is free to agree or disagree with that organization's position, whether fully or partially. There's a reason they have a logo, and I don't see the author of n8n using that logo anywhere on their site.

In my experience, common usage of the term "open source" is far more lax than you're making it out to be. A compelling argument could be made that you're the one gaslighting here.

Clearly stated by one organization whose definition has been universally endorsed. You can't put up a lemonade stand, sell people jars of piss, and then claim that you thought piss was a kind of lemonade. You certainly can't keep doing it after you've been told. You can't choose what language means because it's convenient to you. The definition of open source is universally agreed upon and non-controverial, except for people who want to sow dissent in open source for selfish, profit-driven motivations.

Replying here because I think it got too deeply nested.

I disagree with the definition, or at least the strict application of it. Therefore it is not "universal".

And I question why you disagree with that definition. Can you explain?

Based purely on experience. People use the term to mean different things. That's why the first thing I do when I see a new "open source" project is check the license to clarify "what kind" of open source it is. But I wouldn't assume bad faith unless the license was clearly limited in some way that would affect a high percentage of people who are typically interested in open source projects. I see the value in having a single agreed-upon definition, I just don't think that's realistic without coining a new phrase (similar to how "libre" and "FLOSS" are used for viral licenses). Are you aware of any research showing the adoption of this definition is essentially universal? I'm genuinely curious about that. I'm fully willing to consider that my experience may be an outlier.

EDIT: Also want to point out that in my personal projects that I've made the source available I have exclusively used licenses that are compatible with your definition. But I'm currently working on a project that I intend to monetize, and I'm trying to figure out how to make it as open as possible without risking my ability to make money. Due to responses like yours that I've seen, I'm considering just keeping it closed. I think proprietary software gets less complaints than "source available" software, which is hilarious to me.

What you described doesn't seem to be related to looking for "what kind of open source" it is, but what kind of software it is in general. Just because it's on Github has no bearing on what kind of software it is. Take this, for example:

https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux

On Github - yes

Free/open source - no

Source available - no

Being ignorant of the taxonomy of the software landscape doesn't change that taxonomy. Open source is a meaningful term which has been used for a long time to refer to a specific set of criteria. It was established in the first place as an alternative criteria than "free software", which also has a well understood definition.

I don't have any scholarly research on the subject to put forward, but I can tell you that ignorance of the meaning of "open source" always comes from without. The community building open source software understands what it means, and it's only at the fringes - like HN, where open source hackers mingle freely with capitalists deseparately seeking an angle to turn into profit - where the issue muddies.

> Just because it's on Github has no bearing on what kind of software it is

Straw man.

> I don't have any scholarly research on the subject to put forward, but I can tell you that ignorance of the meaning of "open source" always comes from without. The community building open source software understands what it means.

So everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? That seems a bit strong. I also find your us-vs-them framing concerning.

> capitalists deseparately seeking an angle to turn into profit

I think that the predatory capitalists are more helped by you making this a black and white issue and shaming people into adopting certain types of licenses that leave them open to large corporations glutting themselves off of liberally licensed projects (a la Mongo/Redis). Giving more power to boostrapped small businesses seems like a good idea to me, even if it means having a more liberal definition of "open source".

Anyhow, I think we're beyond the point of constructive debate here. I'll end by saying that I have mad respect for you. I love what you're doing with sourcehut (especially the minimalist design!), and wish you tons of success with that. I also love that you embrace decentralized projects like Mastodon. And I'm not so naive as to think these things are disconnected from your views on open source licensing. I respect those views. I don't even necessarily disagree with your positions, mostly with your approach to disseminating them.

I agree that this isn't likely to go anywhere more productive than it already has. However:

>by you [...] shaming people into adopting certain types of licenses that leave them open to large corporations glutting themselves off of liberally licensed projects

That's not what I've done here. I'm not shaming anyone for using this license. I'm shaming them for using this license and calling it open source. It's not.

Just registering my disagreement with this position. I think the author is right, most people are going to look at the difference between this license and true FOSS and say "whatever".

You cannot disagree about facts. "Open source" is well defined, the author knows about it, and they're lying about their software's qualifications for it to deliberately mislead users and make themselves more money.

1. As was already posted: stop with the hurtful language and accusations toward the author. It’s just sad and disrespectful.

2. It’s not a fact, it’s a definition, as you’re stating it yourself. The thing with definitions and laws is that they can be changed if a majority agrees to do so.

Not sure if it’s the case here. You are probably right with the definition, but stop acting like you have the ultimate truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com