Hacker News Reader

Comment by advaitruia | Hacker News Reader

|| Without qualifying the weight of every feature, it numerically raises a significant challenge to your statement.

Well i think that is the only thing that matters.

If I split all auth methods into the 6 different features it really is, then it becomes 13 free features.

The ones listed as not open source is to indicate what we plan to build for our paid offering. If we removed those and 13/13 were open source, would that change your views? If yes, then that qualification is pretty important.

SAML client and OAuth client are both free. You can add auth with any OAuth 2.0 provider to SuperTokens.

Being an OAuth 'provider' (emphasis) is not open source as it is a feature you need for complex use cases.

You can add 2FA with email or SMS in the open source product too (just requires some customizations and overrides)

View on HN

> Well i think that is the only thing that matters

It's not the only thing that matters. It may matter more, but not all. Yet since I'm not your CPO/CMO I won't get into the effort into analyzing their weights ^_^

> SAML client and OAuth client are both free. You can add auth with any OAuth 2.0 provider to SuperTokens.

I'm not denying what you say, but in your pricing page I read:

* "SAML Auth" --only proprietary version

* "2FA" --only proprietary version

so if they are open source, this feature naming is confusing.

We can go back-and-forth debating the merits of the non-open sourced features. But that doesn't change the gist of my comment: you are advertising something as Open Source, where only a fraction (big or small) is, and I consider this misleading. At least for me. I find it more honest to remove that prominent Open Source calls and instead replace for less prominent comments about part of your software being open source (which is fine and great!). But this is just my 2 cents, take them or leave them ;)

[Edit: formatting]

Agreed on feature naming - will fix!

Also I definitely understand your perspective and it makes sense. SuperTokens still is 100% open source - but you are right, as we evolve into a paid offering, there is scope for improvement

> Being an OAuth 'provider' (emphasis) is not open source

Being an OAuth provider is precisely what everyone expects from a self-described "open source authentication service". If Supertokens does not support that out of the box, it should not really be called an open source authentication service.

I understand you want to capitalize from your work, but I feel this is a gross misrepresentation of a project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com