5 ms·
Not really open source, they are releasing their code under the BSL (Business Source License https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/blob/main/LICENSE https://gi
by stsewd 3y ago
Not really open source, they are releasing their code under the BSL (Business Source License https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/blob/main/LICENSE). But still great, and they use Django :D
It's also interesting that they will no longer offer a commercial self-hosted solution.
> As a part of this shift, we are offering a new self-hosted repo that makes it easy to run Codecov in a minimal docker-compose based setup for proof-of-concept and small volume deployments. We are end-of-lifing our commercial self-hosted offering, but will continue to provide support to existing customers who are running Codecov on-prem.
- mhh__ 3y agoN.B. BSL already refers to boost
- mlinksva 3y agoYeah BUSL or better yet BUSL-1.1 is the right way to refer to the Business Source License https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html BSL or better yet BSL-1.0 is indeed Boost https://spdx.org/licenses/BSL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BSL-1.0.html
- zeeg 3y agoNoted! We’ve messed this up in the past and I have a vague recollection of this same confusion. Hasn’t helped that others (possibly also partly due to us) have made the same mistake. We’ll work to correct this usage.
- whit537 3y agoFYI we have a follow-up at https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/ https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/. > Yesterday we announced that Codecov is now “Open Source”, and we messed up in two ways: > - We wrongly used the term Open Source; while unintentional, we should have known better > - We let our emotions get the best of trying to explain our position, rather than stepping back and addressing the problem > I want to talk about both of these, how we made the mistake, why it’s important to us, and what we plan to do about this to improve the conversation in the future. HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36990036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36990036
- paulddraper 3y ago> Business Source License Standard open-source but you can't use it in a competing commercial offering.
- closewith 3y agoSo not open source.
- paulddraper 3y agoMostly open source.
- whit537 3y agoDon't forget that it reverts to Apache 2.0 after three years—eventually open source for the nit-pickers. ;^) [disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]
- cosmojg 3y agoYou should probably use your position to get the title of this blog post changed, then. "CodeCov will eventually be Open Source" is far less deceptive. Or, more elegantly, "CodeCov is now Source Available".
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoOkay, then either title the page "CodeCov will be Open Source in 3 years", or wait 3 years and then release a post titled "A really old version of CodeCov is now Open Source".
- thinkmassive 3y agoExact text copied from the license file: Change Date:2023-06-29 2027-01-01 Change License: Apache License, Version 2.0 Effective on the Change Date, or the fourth anniversary of the first publicly available distribution of a specific version of the Licensed Work under this License, whichever comes first, the Licensor hereby grants you rights under the terms of the Change License, and the rights granted in the paragraph above terminate. Did Sentry inadvertently open source CodeCov under Apache terms as of June 29, 2023?