N8n is not open source and your project is gaslighting its users
github.com
github.com
The tone of the bug report is unacceptable and enough to avoid any interaction with its author.
Certainly, I would be shocked if anyone considered Karl Fogel to be some kind of asshole, and yet he can be found in the comments not only defending the premise but also defending the issue's anger.
> I realize that @ddevault's reaction may seems strong, but that's because what you are doing innocently is a tactic that many others have done maliciously. Even if your intent was not malicious, the effect is the same: you are confusing the marketplace needlessly. A bunch of people will get home, open up the bottle, and be surprised to discover lemonade when they very clearly bought "milk".
Another thing that should not be forgotten is that bug reports are there to contribute to the software. Not for support requests, not for rants, not for personal attacks on the developers, and not to explain them how wrong they are. "This wording exposes you to a lawsuit/might be offensive to certain contributors/is off-putting" would be ok.
Didn't this issue (n8n) actually get resolved favorably (open-source -> source-available) while the "how issues like this should be treated" was resolved (by the maintainer) by basically saying "fuck off, we will keep lying"?
Btw. Karl Fogel was also part of the n8n open-source discussion and that was for sure also one of the reasons why it got resolved the way it did.
Here a more concise version of the fair-code background: https://blog.n8n.io/fair-code-for-sustainable-open-source-al...
and here information about the Sustainable Use License switch: https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/
> So I chose the Apache License version 2 with Common Clause as a license, which means that n8n was not an OSI-approved open-source project.
> When I launched n8n, I called it “open-source” (note the quotation marks), and everywhere I mentioned that it uses Apache License version 2 with Common Clause, to make it clear.
You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source".
When it comes to monetizing projects by offering them as a service, I would much prefer the BSL shared-source approach that automatically transitions into a true open source license after a fixed ammount of time instead of an OSI licence tainted with a CC so it is no longer OSI aprooved, neither in spirit nor in writing. A CC tainted licence si no longer open and no longer free as in freedom respecting.
And without a fallback to an open license after a time, it will be tainted forever and therefore useless to the open and free ecosystem.
free software is not restricted to definition by OSI, while open source is. source available is just that.
>You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source".
open source and free software both
The tone and accusations to me appear to be inappropriate. While they may be correct, it is just insane to be so accusational. I find it not productive and in turn makes the community worse off in the first place.
I was not actually expecting to be right haha. Dude's far too intense sometimes.
Also, [2019]