SigNoz

[illiliti]

Project: https://signoz.io/ License: Proprietary, MIT Open-source claim: front page, description, README, ... Discussion: TODO

[ssddanbrown]

Thanks @illiliti. When it comes to mixed-license repos (Or "open core" projects in general), I generally wouldn't consider them misleading within the scope of this project unless:

• The open offering cannot be built from open source code alone.
• The open offering doesn't provide the core functionality/benefit being advertised mentioned.
• Their marketing combines open source with the mention of the non-open components, presenting a potentially misleading scenario to users.

Not sure if Signoz currently meets any of those.

I'm not a fan of open core set-ups, and I really wish that if they took this approach they'd at least keep the non-open parts completely separate, but it gets more nuanced in if they're specifically being misleading and somewhat becomes opinion on their project setup, monetization methods or business approach.

[illiliti]

If they were clearly distinguished, there would no issue. But when I see something is open-source, I expect that the whole bundle of source code is open-source. What I see instead? Some code is MIT, some code is proprietary. How is that not misleading?

[illiliti]

By the same logic Skiff isn't guilty because it has some open-source code and some proprietary. Does it mean it has right to advertise itself as open-source? No because it is either fully open-source with no exceptions or not at all. Same here, either open-source or not at all. There is no middleground.

[ssddanbrown]

How is that not misleading?

From my view, it comes down to what they're advertising as open source vs what's actually open source. If I can't use their project from open source code, and gain the main features/functionality/purpose that's being advertised as open source, then that's an issue. If they have some optional components that they provide under a different license, that they choose to have within the same repo, then I don't think that's misleading as long as they're fairly clear and up-front about it. Again, I'd prefer they didn't mix repos like this, but it can somewhat be a preference/opinion of organization.

I respect that some may see the open core approach as misleading, but it gets closer to a gray area based upon expectations, hence my general rules above. To cover all open core approaches significantly changes the scope of this repo in my view.

By the same logic Skiff isn't guilty because it has some open-source code and some proprietary. Does it mean it has right to advertise itself as open-source?

I haven't looked deeply into Skiff, but it appears mostly licensed as non-open-source (CC BY-NC-SA) so I can't gain the advertised features/use-case/purpose/functionality from open source code alone, which seems quite different to SigNoz (again, haven't looked deeply to validate).

[illiliti]

Aha so we have a different points of view. You say that if project advertises itself as open-source, then its claimed functionality must be available from the open-source code. I say that if project advertises itself as open-source, then all its source code must be open-source. From a certain point of view we are both right. Your viewpoint sound more relaxed than mine and therefore I don't like it. But I won't argue and simply concede. You can close this issue and other my issues that you believe don't align with your goals.