n8n is not open source and your project is gaslighting its users

[ddevault]

This behavior is not acceptable. Even the Commons Clause itself tells you not to describe your software as open source, see the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/

The Apache license is a well known and respected license, and the "Commons Clause" leverages the language of the also well known "Creative Commons", together creating a false impression that this software is distributed by a respectable group of developers. You cannot rely on putting its name there to correct your lies.

Your software is rightly called "source available". Do not gaslight us. In the words of Randall Monroe:

I just noticed CVS has started stocking homeopathic pills on the same shelves with--and labeled similarly to--their actual medicine. Telling someone who trusts you that you're giving them medicine, when you know you're not, because you want their money, isn't just lying--it's like an example you'd make up if you had to illustrate for a child why lying is wrong.

Note: If you lock this issue you are a liar and a coward. Hear the anger of those you've wronged.

Edit: this link is useful for onlookers wondering I'm angry out of the gate.

[phoe]

To clarify @ddevault's pretty aggressive post: the website at https://n8n.io/ describes n8n.io as Open Source Alternative for Zapier/tray.io.

Based on the commonly understood definitions of "open source" - the open source definition from OSI or the free software definition from FSF - n8n.io is not "open source", as Commons Clause-licensed software does not meet their criteria.

[ddevault]

I have filed a pull request which fixes this for the docs and README:

https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/pull/42

The website will need to be updated as well.

[jaller94]

Why is the issue (especially the note that he would be a coward) so emotionally charged and accusing? In my opinion this is not constructive feedback and gives the project owner little chance to resolve the issue while saving their face.

Though valid in its point about the license, I want to flag the first version of the original post as not adhering to the project's Code of Conduct nor good etiquette.

[ddevault]

Because it threatens a fragile community which is near to our hearts, and does it out of blatant financial self-interest. And it seems that, since we're still talking about it here, the author has proven themselves not to be a coward.

[ddevault]

And for the record, there is a way the author can get out of this while saving face: redact what they've said and be honest in their marketing material. I will be harsh on malicious attempts at subverting open source, but I'm not beyond forgiveness when the behavior is corrected.

[jhoughjr]

I can see no reason to use this code in my projects if only YOU get to monetize it. You are blatantly lying to get attention and trying to lawyer yourself out of it. Why profit from the contributions of others only for yourself? Would have been great for my needs, but I have to eat. Thank you for wasting my and my client's time evaluating your product only to realize you lie on the front page and contradict yourself in the same breath. I urge all developers to boycott this project for its shady misleading practices.

[jhoughjr]

It appears the language of the FAQ doesn't jive with the definition of the Commons Clause. A bit confusing. "May I create, distribute, offer as SaaS, and/or “sell” my products using Commons Clause licensed components?

Yes!

Commons Clause only forbids you from “selling” the Commons Clause software itself. You may develop on top of Commons Clause licensed software (adding applications, tools, utilities or plug-ins) and you may embed and redistribute Commons Clause software in a larger product, and you may distribute and even “sell” (which includes offering as a commercial SaaS service) your product. You may even provide consulting services (see clarifying discussion here). You just can’t sell a product that consists in substance of the Commons Clause software and does not add value.

This is not a new concept. It’s similar to “value-add” requirements in many licenses. For example let’s say you use a library containing numerical algorithms from Rogue Wave Software. Can you create an application with the library and sell the application? Yes. Can you offer that application as SaaS and charge for it? Yes. Can you change the name of the library and change some function names and sell the library or offer it as SaaS? No.

Let’s apply the example to Commons Clause licensed software. Commons Clause-licensed Redis Graph is a graph database module for BSD-licensed Redis. Can you create applications with Redis Graph and distribute and/or sell them? Yes. Can you redistribute Redis Graph along with your application? Yes. Can you offer that application as SaaS and charge for it? Yes. Can you take Redis Graph itself, call it ElastiGraph and offer it as SaaS and charge for it. No."

[janober]

Honestly did not expect that people care THAT much about that. I simply fear that it confuses way more people than it helps. I myself have no idea at all what the term "source-available" really means and I assume that is the case for most people. But sure understand also your position.

But I also think debating right now further about it would not help. I will think about it at least a night (maybe more) to make a decision. I advise also the other side to do the same to see and understand my side. If the decision is that I change it. Everything is solved anyway. If I decide to keep it we can proceed here.

[ddevault]

I myself have no idea at all what the term "source-available" really means and I assume that is the case for most people

"Source available" is only a vaugely established term, unlike "open source" which has a very clear definition. Proponents of open source have been pushing "source available" to give an out to people who are trying to dillute our terminology with software that doesn't supply the freedoms at the core of the (non-negotiable, entirely clear) definition of open source software. Though the term "source available" is less well-known, that doesn't give you an excuse to misuse established terminology. If you think that using "open source" will get you a bigger market, then you'd be correct - but you can only access the open source market by being open source, and if you're not you don't get to use the term.

[kfogel]

Hi, @janober. There's some history here that you're probably not aware of:

For many years -- literally decades -- companies have tried to dilute the term "open source" by applying it to software licenses that don't offer the full set of freedoms that true open source offers. In fact, one of the main functions of https://opensource.org/ is to push back on these companies swiftly and thus preserve the recognizeable meaning of the term "open source". See https://opensource.org/faq#avoid-unapproved-licenses for more information.

People depend on that meaning. When they know software is actually open source, then they can use it in a number of contexts without having to ask their lawyers to re-review the license terms (because the lawyers already reviewed all the open source licenses, years ago, and we have no need to dance that dance again).

This really is selling lemonade and labelling it "milk". When people point out that you are doing that, you can sleep on it if you want, but there is no point trying to change the definition of the word "milk" so that it covers lemonade too. Everyone already agreed years ago what "milk" means. Please don't create your own private language and then try to persuade everyone that the terms we are accustomed to using actually mean something different from what we all mean by them.

It's no different than if you claimed your software "reads email" when it doesn't actually have that feature. You wouldn't try to get out of that by saying that your definition of "read email" is different from everyone else's. Instead, you'd acknowledge that you'd used the words wrong and fix the wording -- at least, that's what I hope you'd do.

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".

Don't do this to software developers. Please use words with the meanings they already have.

Your software is not open source. Stop claiming it is.

[janober]

@kfogel Thanks a lot for explaining that to me. Is very appreciated and really helpful and important for me to know to get some context.

[mjhea0]

Why open an issue with such aggressiveness, @ddevault? Why assume ill-intentions from the get go?

EDIT: This is why -> https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=is-n8n-really-open-source

[etewiah]

I was initially upset by @ddevault 's aggressive tone but on reflection its probably a good thing - its generating even more strong feelings for the project. Thanks @janober for sharing the source code for such an awesome project - that's good enough to make up for any misunderstanding about the correct label for such a project.

[cohan]

There's absolutely no way this aggression is warranted @ddevault ! At least let the person turn out to be an evil villain before you treat them as one.

Getting some seriously strong vibes that you just learned the term gaslighting recently too - if we're on misuse of words and phrases it might be worth brushing up on that term.. Even by your definition this is "lying" at best (source available), not "gaslighting" (open source)

[ddevault]

It's correct that it recently occured to me that the term gaslighting was appropriate for this kind of misbehavior. However, my use of it is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.

Targetting the open source community, sowing seeds of doubt, questioning our memories of some kind of long-standing debate on the nature of the term "open source", trying to change our perception of the phrase... it fits pretty damn well.

[kfogel]

I think @janober did it through inattention and ignorance, however, not with a consciously thought-out goal of destabilizing the term "open source" (unlike some others who have done it over the years).

After this thread, if @janober doesn't fix it, well, then I would agree that inattention and ignorance can no longer be claimed, so it would be knowingly destructive behavior at that point. I don't know what time zone @janober is in, so I'm not assuming the commits to fix this would come in instantaneously, but still, they're pretty trivial, so it should be an easy fix assuming he wants to make it...

[ddevault]

I came out with guns blazing because @janober has already demonstrated an awareness of the problem and declared they are unwilling to fix it:

https://docs.n8n.io/#/faq?id=is-n8n-really-open-source

[janober]

Like written above I want to first properly think about it and then make a decision. I can totally understand your side but I think my original reasoning is still true. That why properly thinking about it seems like the right thing to do.

And like written in the FAQ was my goal simply to communicate to the majority of the people what they are allowed to do with n8n. Did never cross my mind to destabilize the term "open source". Have way to much other stuff on my plate to also add that ;-)

Btw. are in Berlin so is getting quite late here and have to get up early tomorrow. So will not be around much longer.

[mjhea0]

@ddevault: I see. I didn't know this existed. You may want to add that to the original post for context.

I still think you'd get a bit further if you dropped the language. I started questioning whether I knew what the term gaslighting meant, which, in effect, would be gaslighting on your part. :)

P.S. Is 30.000 USD $30.00 or $30,000?

[janober]

@mjhea0 its 30k

[kfogel]

Oh, I hadn't seen that. @ddevault has a point here.

@janober, your "0.01%" in that FAQ item is, to put it mildly, wrong. A lot of devs, and a lot of companies, care very strongly about the actual definition. I myself only clicked on the link from Hacker News because it said open source -- so you already wasted my time, though I suppose I can't blame you entirely for all the followup time I've spent since then :-).

Look, a lot of people who have a lot of experience with this issue are piling on and saying that your personal and idiosyncratic interpretation of the word "open source" is not shared by the professional software industry at large. All you have to do is search the Net to find out that this issue has come up before and been resolved -- in favor of the definition we are claiming -- every time.

Fix the license, fix the home page, fix the FAQ, and then you won't be damaging the term "open source" anymore.

[ddevault]

Like written above I want to first properly think about it and then make a decision. I can totally understand your side but I think my original reasoning is still true. That why properly thinking about it seems like the right thing to do.

The original reasoning describes a valid mode of thought about software development. These are reasonable problems to consider and you've come to reasonable conclusions. Taking these into account while developing software is a good thing, and source-available software is definitely better than entirely proprietary software.

However, as just as your rationale may be for informing your software development philosophy, it doesn't change the fact that your software is not open source. If your conclusion from these (valid) points of view is that your software can lie about being open source, then that's where it stops being okay.

[ddevault]

You may want to add that to the original post for context.

Done.

[mikementor]

// It reminded me of all these 'master-slave' renaming madness...

[eitland]

@janober This project will be valuable even if it isn't Open Source so don't feel too discouraged, but please change the wording or the license, it is misleading, and more importantly in this case, might encourage others to think it is OK.

In this case it doesn't mean much to me as I was only looking to use it at home but there are a number of companies doing this in various ways and it is extremely annoying when it happens. It is also not so much that I'm are planning to sell support or hosting but that while other open source licenses are vetted by a number of parties and are well understood the commons clause will (rightly in my opinion) raise concerns in any serious company of any size.

Also ddevault is worth listening to, he is also publishing open source software and has been doing so for a while and lives by his own rules as far as I can see.

[kennymalac]

@ddevault I think you are being intellectually dishonest. If you go on the repo it says "Open Source" in quotes and in the FAQ it's addressed as not being OSI-compatible. The developer is just trying to make a bit of money in a world where selling software has become obsolete and I see very little wrong with this. If he wants to use Open Source as a marketing term, who cares? Why are you so upset about something that has very little effect on you? Nowhere does n8n claim to be FOSS so I see very little wrong with this.

[phoe]

If he wants to use Open Source as a marketing term, who the fuck cares?

I understand that @ddevault already outlined it in his posts - care comes from the people who have been coining and using the term to mean strictly what it meant so far, as defined by OSI and FSF.

Nowhere does n8n claim to be FOSS

He claims so right in the name, where he says his software is Open Source, and therefore it is FOSS, since FOSS means Free and Open Source Software.

[mikulabc]

Not a developer here: I find zapier and ifttt way too big and expensive and when i saw n8n it reminded me of the android app "Automate" and felt like a breeze of fresh air :) anyone here planning on creating anything like it that would be fully "open source"? I will be using n8n till then

[cohan]

Nowhere does n8n claim to be FOSS

He claims so right in the name, where he says his software is Open Source, and therefore it is FOSS, since FOSS means Free and Open Source Software.

Honestly that sounds like it's being used properly if FOSS is Free and Open Source. That would imply Open Source that doesn't specify free is just that, source open but not free. FOSS and Open Source need to pick a champion.

@ddevault

Targetting the open source community, sowing seeds of doubt, questioning our memories of some kind of long-standing debate on the nature of the term "open source", trying to change our perception of the phrase... it fits pretty damn well.

The key difference is that gaslighting is something done deliberately, whereas OP here has bumped into a hornets nest. Don't dilute the term gaslighting to make your words sound more impactful. It's software that someone's releasing for free, it's not an abusive relationship. Wind it in a bit.

[kfogel]

@kennymalac "FOSS" and "OSS" and "Free and Open Source" and "Free, Libre, Open Source Software" and "FLOSS" -- they all mean the same thing, the same set of well-known licenses. And that set does not include the licensing terms n8n is released under, which is why we're saying please don't label n8n as though it's in that well-known set.

If you put a big sign saying "MILK" on your lemonade bottle, and people get it thinking it's lemonade, it doesn't matter if you included a little asterisk and a small-print footnote saying "Actually, I use the word "milk" to mean lemonade, so please don't be surprised."

[kfogel]

And @kennymalac, the specific freedom in the Open Source Definition (which I already cited earlier in this thread) that n8n violates is the right to use the software for any purpose -- no restriction on "field of use".

So @ddevault is being intellectually consistent. You might not like his style, but his argument is 100% sound.

[francescoagati]

Not a developer here: I find zapier and ifttt way too big and expensive and when i saw n8n it reminded me of the android app "Automate" and felt like a breeze of fresh air :) anyone here planning on creating anything like it that would be fully "open source"? I will be using n8n till then

nodered

[dickdavis]

And @kennymalac, the specific freedom in the Open Source Definition (which I already cited earlier in this thread) that n8n violates is the right to use the software for any purpose -- no restriction on "field of use".

@kfogel I don't see how the Commons Clause ("Without limiting other conditions in the License, the grant of rights under the License will not include, and the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software."), conflicts with the Open Source Definition as defined on https://opensource.org/osd. Can you elaborate as to where the conflict is?

"FOSS" and "OSS" and "Free and Open Source" and "Free, Libre, Open Source Software" and "FLOSS" -- they all mean the same thing, the same set of well-known licenses.

This is simply incorrect. Free Software is not the same thing as open source. Richard Stallman, the pioneer of Free Software, elaborates on this here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.

[ddevault]

You cannot withhold the right to sell the software. It's in the very first criteria on the page you linked to:

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

The Commons Clause FAQ itself states that it's not an open source license.

[dickdavis]

You cannot withhold the right to sell the software. It's in the very first criteria on the page you linked to:

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

@ddevault I think that your reading is flawed. This portion has more to do with payment for access to the source code than it does free as in free beer, which is what you are alluding to.

[ddevault]

That's not what it means. Your interpretation is incorrect.

[ddevault]

https://opensource.org/faq#commercial

[dickdavis]

That's not what it means. Your interpretation is incorrect.

Was the link that you provided supposed to back up your opinion? I don't see that it does. Of course, you only provided a link without a rationale--a pretty low-effort argument; hence the follow-up.

Also, are you carrying on your crusade against other software companies that provide limited-use "community" licenses for their products, or do you just plan on attacking small-time developers? Honestly, you should have approached this differently.

[ddevault]

You're now arguing to the point of willful ignorance. Do you have a vested ignorance in not understanding this?

I'm not attacking limited-use community licenses. I'm not attacking small-time developers. Give me a break. I'm attacking someone who is misusing important terminology to sell a product as something it's not.

[dickdavis]

You're now arguing to the point of willful ignorance. Do you have a vested ignorance in not understanding this?

No...? I am not understanding what you link to because it is so ambiguous as to be effectively useless. Of course, this speaks more to the fact that "Open Source" is an effectively neutered term. I can see getting on a high horse to defend the concept of Free Software, but Open Source is just a development model, really.

I'm attacking someone who is misusing important terminology to sell a product as something it's not.

You don't see the problem inherent in attacking the person in the first place? How constructive is that? You have an opportunity to educate someone (who has shown that he is open to it), yet you choose to browbeat him instead.

[Mikotochan]

"n8n is a free node based \"Open Source\" (with Commons Clause)" seems fine to me. It is free for everyone to modify, use, and distribute this software - as long as they are not doing it for commercial gain (which is the most important part of open source, if you are someone who makes money from the software that others wrote just pay them), which is why it says "\"Open Source\" (with Commons Clause)" rather than just "Open Source". Source available licenses usually refer to things like the "Shared Source Initiative" by MS which is more similar to an EULA and stops you from modifying, using, or distributing the software even if you are not doing it for non-commercial reasons. I believe that Commons Clause is closer to Open Source than to Shared Source licenses.

[ddevault]

No...? I am not understanding what you link to because it is so ambiguous as to be effectively useless. Of course, this speaks more to the fact that "Open Source" is an effectively neutered term. I can see getting on a high horse to defend the concept of Free Software, but Open Source is just a development model, really.

No, it doesn't, and I'll thank you for ceasing your lies and FUD. I have presented you with undisputed, clear facts, and you have willfully ignored them. I have no further interest in talking to you.

[ddevault]

"n8n is a free node based "Open Source" (with Commons Clause)" seems fine to me. It is free for everyone to modify, use, and distribute this software - as long as they are not doing it for commercial gain (which is the most important part of open source, if you are someone who makes money from the software that others wrote just pay them), which is why it says ""Open Source" (with Commons Clause)" rather than just "Open Source". Source available licenses usually refer to things like the "Shared Source Initiative" by MS which is more similar to an EULA and stops you from modifying, using, or distributing the software even if you are not doing it for non-commercial reasons.

Not doing it for commercial gain is not the most important part of open source. It's literally the first freaking freedom guaranteed by it. Stop the fucking lies. Jesus fucking christ. You can slap your hands over your ears and scream as loud as you like but it doesn't make your bullshit any less false.

[witeshadow]

I'm going to try this software. I saw the link on Hacker News and certainly "Open Source" helped encourage me to click. But please either change the language used on the site or change the license. It would really help me feel better about it and I think would help people feel better about contributing as well.

[Mikotochan]

It's literally the first freaking freedom guaranteed by it

And? It follows every other freedom. As I said, this is why they call it "\"Open Source\" (with Commons Clause)"

I should note, when speaking of "Open Source" I use the definition for "Free software". I do not recognise OSI as anything but a corporate tool.

[Mikotochan]

This issue is just filled with people who want to use other's work for commercial gain without giving anything back to the author(s). Shame

[tretinha]

You should really change the language (or the license). This is not open source and you should not pose as if it is. I don't like being mislead just so your marketing strategies are pleased.

[kfogel]

@d3d1rty please see clause 6 in https://opensource.org/osd. Also, Patrick Masson (@massonpj), the General Manager of the Open Source Initiative, the organization that was specifically founded by the group that coined the term open source, to certify licenses as complying with that term's meaning, has chimed in in the related n8n web site issue, saying exactly what I'm saying:

https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n-website-github/issues/1#issuecomment-540042149

What I said about "open source" and "free software" referring to the same set of licenses is correct, and you can see this easily by comparing the lists of licenses labeled as such by the OSI and the FSF (Free Software Foundation). Stallman's essay is about the political implications of the terms (by the way, not everyone agrees with that essay of his), not about the legal meaning of the licenses they refer to. Free software licenses are open source licenses and vice versa.

If you still don't believe me, see this FAQ item opensource.org: https://opensource.org/faq#free-software.

[skellat]

There does come a point where fair description of a product is necessary. From all of this discussion this certainly wouldn't meet normal fair description or proper labeling. That could negatively impact consumer rights and in a global marketplace that may result in negative consequences. A "good faith" defense has its limits, too. Please label the product accurately.

[eitland]

This issue is just filled with people who want to use other's work for commercial gain without giving anything back to the author(s). Shame

@Mikotochan you misunderstand this, either willfully or otherwise.

As I have said before if the author changes the wording that is fine with me. For what it is worth he might even make it commercial, as long as he doesn't call it open source.

Also - for now - I and you can use it at home without bumping into this clause.

Even if I plan on providing hosting the author has generously said that up to 30000 should be OK without an agreement.

This is all about not diluting the term "open source" which has a clear and specific meaning for anyone you want to listen to.

As for why some people get a bit hot it is because open source has been attacked from all sides for years, including by powerful companies who are now pushing open source.