Comment by bentlegen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bentlegen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It feels like you intentionally omitted his immediate follow-up to your quoted comment:

> > my theory about embrace/extend/extinguish seems to be as accurate as I thought.

> This is confused. Embrace/extend/extinguish means to initially participate in an open standard and then extend the standard in such a way that the non-extended version is sidelined.

I'd encourage people to read the entire thread rather than seize on the cherry-picked comment, additionally loaded with terminology like "they want to destroy open source", which doesn't appear in the original thread.

I can't speak for whit537, but I do work at Sentry, and I feel your comments about our intentions are disingenuous. We are open in that we feel the existing models don't fit our needs, and we're trying to evolve the language to make non-compete licenses more approachable and thus more mainstream. That doesn't mean an elimination of existing popular OSS licenses. We're even explicit in saying, "FSL is for SaaS businesses". That's pretty narrow, and probably excludes 99% of software.

Note that the FSL is developed in the public, and echoes the language I've used above[1]. But if you believe pursuing additional licensing mechanisms means we're destroying OSS, there is probably little I can do to disavow you of that notion.

[1] https://github.com/getsentry/fsl.software

> But if you believe pursuing additional licensing mechanisms means we're destroying OSS, there is probably little I can do to disavow you of that notion.

Speaking of disingenuous, every time the sentry people come in here to talk it's always strawmen. My issue is with sentry trying to redefine open source, not your creation of new licenses. If you want to put out proprietary or shared source licenses I'm cool with that, but when you try to mislead people into thinking those licenses are open source I think you're crossing a line. Your head of open source himself said he wants to redefine open source in a way that restricts how people can use software. That is the issue.

> Speaking of disingenuous, every time the sentry people come in here to talk it's always strawmen.

Good that I'm not the only one who feels that way. Every comment by Sentry people I've read here so far was basically a mix of straw man, word lawyering ("We didn't say this. We said something that means the same to anyone who doesn't actively try to think of some fringe interpretation, but OBVIOUSLY that means you misquoted us. How unfair.") and aggressive "you are against us! Meanie!"

Or in other words, to use their quote back on them: If you are convinced your license is the best thing since sliced bread, there is probably little we can do to disavow you of that notion.

> Or in other words, to use their quote back on them: If you are convinced your license is the best thing since sliced bread, there is probably little we can do to disavow you of that notion.

I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that this license is the best thing since sliced bread, or even described it as "great". It is a license we have chosen to use that we think is good for us, and we think it has merit for similar SaaS businesses who choose to share their code as we do.

(If I'm mistaken and someone has claimed that, I am happy to be corrected.)

Let me rephrase it a bit less aggressive, I think "disarming" the discussion is good: I understand the part that you think it works good for you (hey, why else would you use it?) and you hope it can help others. But the 'vibe' I get from your answers is very .. Stallman-y? And at least to me that's very off-putting.

But: I still wish you the best. The sustainability crisis in open source is a real problem and I hold my fingers crossed for a good solution.

Most comments I've seen are just clarifications, and they're usually pointing towards a good-faith reading of what was said, rather than a "what evil plot for world domination does this hide?"-reading.

Let's not pretend the "feedback" on these types of things is generally less than stellar, and often quite toxic. Some people are convinced this is part of some dark and sinister plot and will use even the slightest hint to "prove" this. The dynamic here is not the easiest to navigate.

> when you try to mislead people into thinking those licenses are open source I think you're crossing a line.

Here's what Armin wrote in the parent linked article:

> ... But one thing is clear: until its expiration, the license does not qualify as Open Source. While I recognize the sensitivity around the term “Open Source”, I assert that the FSL's approach is more closely aligned with Open Source ideals than mere source availability. I consider it an “Eventually Open Source” license, though perhaps a more fitting term needs to be found.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com