I think this is not particularly impartial. Sentry is marked as "NOPE" even though it is basically open source (any commit older than two years is), yet projects that are open core forever are "issues exist" and "partially".
In other words, current Sentry isn't Open Source, but old versions are available. I think it's a fair characterization that Sentry is not Open Source, unless there's an actual community around the Open Source version.
Ah, wait -- you don't say that Open Source requires a community. You state that, if there was interest in the older version of Sentry, then that version could be considered as Open Source. I agree with this one as well, then.
[I considered deleting this comment, but maybe it will be useful to others who have not read closely.]
> All components powering the main Sentry and Codecov web apps use FSL, which limits their usage in a commercial Sentry-like offering.
The license limits usage in a commercial context. That's not FOSS by the OSI's definition, which is the definition I care about.
Heck, you can tell from the URL that Sentry _really_ wants to pretend they are open source.
"Partially" makes sense for something where some component or subproject is released under a proprietary license and other components or subprojects are released under a free software license.
Software that will eventually be open-source isn't yet open-source. A once-F/OSS codebase that was closed and removed from GitHub two years ago also has all commits that are 2+ years old open-source, but that that doesn't make such a codebase open-source, either.
The reality is the company is releasing software to customers that have no way of using the source code to that software under an open source license. You can claim this is somehow open source because they will eventually be able to use the source code under an open source license, but that doesn't make the software open source today, any more than you can lock someone in jail and claim they're actually free because they'll get out in two years.
We both self-host and pay for the service. There is ample engagement from the development team with the larger community. There are also a myriad of open source projects without the same licence restrictions that Sentry-the-company publishes or maintains which make up key functionalities in Sentry-the-product.
Given that it's almost been 2 years since the FSL change[1], I would imagine it's possible to set up a rolling mirror into https://gitlab.com/glitchtip/sentry-open-source/sentry that serves as an easier "what is actually open right now?" browser.
I just realized while typing that out: a snapshot of the source code actually doesn't help anyone know if a particular commit is Apache 2 since the change is dependent upon an accounting record on GitHub
That was the advantage of the BuSL 1.1 scheme, that those cut-over dates were embedded in the file https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.7.0/LICENSE#L19 and https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/22.8.0/LICENSE#L19 is open in 10 days
1: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/commit/d4d89e2fa93ad99f1... is Nov 17, 2023 -05:00
The current license for sentry seems to be a large part of the reason for the nope.
They give a pretty detailed explanation of the decision.
It’s still a good product.