n8n is not open source and your project is gaslighting its users about n8n HOT 397 CLOSED

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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

#42

The website will need to be updated as well.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

@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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

@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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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)

from n8n.

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

from n8n.

To anyone wondering why I'm angry and pushing this so hard, it's because lies breed more lies. It normalizes this shit and morons like @kennymalac will eat it up.

from n8n.

At this point, I'm not sure what more arguments @ddevault or I could make. If one ignores his, shall we say, somewhat more forceful style :-), we're saying the same thing, which is basically this:

There is a term "open source", and there is a very large, very broad group of people and organizations who agree on one specific, very clearly-defined meaning for that term. I'll list some of the organizations, just to give you an idea: the Open Source Initiative, the Free Software Foundation (yes, they agree with OSI about what licenses the term "open source" refers to), the U.S. government (yes, really: their procurement offices need to be accurate about terms like this, so they agree on what "open source" means), the Apache Software Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, IBM, and... well, virtually every other major tech company and organization that I can think of. That's right: their lawyers and executives and engineers (the ones who actually work with open source, anyway) all agree on the same meaning that @ddevault and I are saying the term has. They consistently use the term that way, and they don't use it to refer to any non-open-source licenses. This is not a coincidence!

So @kennymalac, if you're making the argument that language is defined by usage and that no one can formally control a non-trademarked term like "open source" in a strict legal sense -- an argument I agree with, by the way -- @janober is still doing something wrong.

As I wrote earlier: if you sell lemonade but label it "milk", even after people have asked you to please stop doing that, then folks have every right to be annoyed. We all had an agreed-on definition of "milk", and it's not because there's some authority controlling those terms. It's because "milk" has a widely understood meaning, and when you misapply it to something that's not milk, that makes extra work for everyone else -- they now have to make an extra effort to figure out what you're selling. They'll waste their time taking your bottle off the shelf and inspecting it, when you could have just labeled it accurately in the beginning.

Is there any part of this I can make clearer?

from n8n.

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

from n8n.

kennymalac/tinyCDN@886fbce

I hope y'all are happy. 😃

from n8n.

@ddevault Your fundamental premise is erroneous. Your premise is that someone may be wronged by mistaking the project as open source when it is not. Do you know of any project owner that would neglect to understand the software license of the projects he is dependent on? You are relying on a hypothetical situation which is not very likely. Can you name a project where someone has violated the license unknowingly and been fucked over by it? I know of companies using free software for profit illegally, but what about this particular circumstance? There has been no egregious crime commited here and you and your followers are simply crying wolf. You are mistaking a hard-working development team and owner contributing valuable, complex software as a devil which is facetious and downright disrespectful.

And a second point: pretending that the OSI as an institution can determine the usage of a word as improper is simply not how language works. Whether or not his usage of the term is compatible with the so-called "open source community" at large is only relevant politically. Open source has eroded at the spirit of the four essential freedoms and there cannot be anything done to protect open source as a term: open source was already put together on shaky grounds and a lack of real ethical principles, so it makes little sense to me to consider itt as anything other than a farce. That is my personal feeling on open source, but otherwise my point still stands: you are attempting to control the usage of the term in politically motivated spirit, not in an ethical one. Your ethical foundation for this argument is ignoring the free software movement and its fight against the lunacy of open source. This software is proprietary, but not closed source, case closed..

If you are to continue this discussion constructively, I would at the very least rescind your previous statements as they are not constructive and uncongenial.

@janober I would not be a pushover as these people are bullies and have not contributed a single line of code. All they have done is complain and attempt to control the usage of language with their watered down ethics.
Personally I feel that having your software as proprietary is fine because we see injustice with many SaaS companies using open source with little gain for the original author. I am fully in support of you and will adopt a similar license for my TinyCDN software as you have made me aware of this issue.
As for the negative publicity you may attract for sticking to your guns, Oscar Wilde once said: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
On top of that, these people are suggesting that if one is to avoid this injustice and still label it open source, they will tar and feather you! How abusive!

from n8n.

I ignored your rebuttals because they were almost too stupid to entertain. Since you insist, I will refute everything you've written one sentence at a time.

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.

If you go to the repo. If you visit n8n.io the home page is plastered with the open source vocabulary and no scare quotes. As I addressed in my opening comment, explicitly stating "Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause" is not an acceptable remediation for misusing the open source terminology. The name of this license is deliberately misleading and appropriates the language of open source to convey the impression of something that isn't.

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.

I see nothing wrong with this. I see something wrong with how he goes about it.

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

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

And, obviously, I fucking care, and so does everyone else in this thread who's said as much.

Why are you so pissed about something that has very little effect on you?

(fallacy: has no bearing on my arguments)

I have basically devoted my entire life to open source. It has a massive effect on me if we quietly allow the term to be dilluted by stuff which fucking isn't.

This is why the term open source itself is a can of worms because really only free-as-in-freedom software guarantees you the four essential freedoms that the great Richard Stallman has outlined.

Free-as-in-freedom is not what he called it, but if he had I would have taken up the same arguments because it's not that, either. Free-as-in-freedom is defined by the free software definition, which you are appealing to here as a strawman (fallacy!). He calls it open source, which is defined by the open source definition.

Nowhere does n8n claim to be FOSS so I see very little wrong with this.

Same rebuttal.

Your fundamental premise is erroneous. Your premise is that someone may be wronged by mistaking the project as open source when it is not.

See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21197231

This applies to more than just contributors, too, but I don't have the patience to drum up a fresh rationale to rebuke more of your nonsense.

Do you know of any project owner that would neglect to understand the software license of the projects he is dependent on?

What? He obviously understands it, and chooses to lie about it anyway. He's written up a nice detailed explanation about how it's not open source on the FAQ, then proceeds to call it that anyway.

You are relying on a hypothetical situation which is not very likely. Can you name a project where someone has violated the license unknowingly and been fucked over by it?

Yes

I know of companies using free software for profit illegally, but what about this particular circumstance? There has been no egregious crime commited here and you and your followers are simply crying wolf. You are mistaking a hard-working development team and owner contributing valuable, complex software as a devil which is facetious and downright disrespectful.

None of this is substantive and I feel no need to rebuke it.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

🖕

A 7-star, 46 commit, entirely incomplete project being made into an example out of spite by an ignorant jerk? Oh, the humanity!

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

Also, @kennymalac, doesn't the fact that the authors of the Commons Clause themselves agree that it's not open source... kind of... indicate something here?

from n8n.

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."

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

"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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

@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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

@ddevault Okay I think I've done my due diligence here!

I ignored your rebuttals because they were almost too stupid to entertain. Since you insist, I will refute everything you've written one sentence at a time.

You didn't address my newest reply sentence by sentence, so this is a lie.

If you go to the repo. If you visit n8n.io the home page is plastered with the open source vocabulary and no scare quotes. As I addressed in my opening comment, explicitly stating "Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause" is not an acceptable remediation for misusing the open source terminology. The name of this license is deliberately misleading and appropriates the language of open source to convey the impression of something that isn't.

The developer clarifies in the FAQ the license is not OSI certified. Whether or not he is misusing the term is subjective and no authority that claims to be morally righteous can take that away.

I see nothing wrong with this. I see something wrong with how he goes about it.

Understandable. But I think you're behaving as if you are morally righteous when in reality you have a political motive because you think he is subverting open source. EVEN THOUGH in his FAQ, the dev points out he is not intending to be truly OSI-certified (which is the only term the OSI has copyrighted, by the way)

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

Open source as a term is a can of worms. AGAIN, he says it in his FAQ. If someone bothered to do any amount of research at all on this project, they would find that quite quickly.

And, obviously, I fucking care, and so does everyone else in this thread who's said as much.

Great! I'm glad you are passionate about something. But you are going about this in the worst way possible

(fallacy: has no bearing on my arguments)

No, it is not my main premise there. I am just wondering why you are so emotionally involved and childish about the matter.

I have basically devoted my entire life to open source. It has a massive effect on me if we quietly allow the term to be dilluted by stuff which fucking isn't.

Okay, now I understand. You're tainted by ideology and biased because of it. Great. Are you in the business of selling software? Do you think everyone can live on donations alone from the good of people's hearts? Not that you can't make money off of free software, but the game has changed with web and SaaS companies.

Free-as-in-freedom is not what he called it, but if he had I would have taken up the same arguments because it's not that, either. Free-as-in-freedom is defined by the free software definition, which you are appealing to here as a strawman (fallacy!). He calls it open source, which is defined by the open source definition.

I'm appealing to it because free-as-in-freedom is a valid concept whereas open source is a sore on this planet. And sure, OSI may have political clout, but usage of a word determines its meaning. NOWHERE does anybody claim proprietary software is free-as-in-freedom, whereas the usage of open source is inconsistent with what the OSI claims.

See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21197231

Yeah, and @janober 's reply here is perfectly reasonable. You are being an asshole and beating the drum of "proprietary software developer man is evil"

This applies to more than just contributors, too, but I don't have the patience to drum up a fresh rationale to rebuke more of your nonsense.

I see this as cowardice in the face of an opponent. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe you think I have a point here but are so blinded by your emotions that to save face you refuse to engage with me in an actual dialogue. Engaging with me in a conversation among adults: that's the mature thing to do, but you are being irrationally hostile.

What? He obviously understands it, and chooses to lie about it anyway. He's written up a nice detailed explanation about how it's not open source on the FAQ, then proceeds to call it that anyway.

I'm talking about something else here. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for any project owner to use his shit and not do due diligence. I'm not talking about @janober

Yes

Okay, do so. But they are probably just ignorant of how to properly select dependencies for a project.

None of this is substantive and I feel no need to rebuke it.

Mkay. More displays of arrogance

from n8n.

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...

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

"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.

from n8n.

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

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

Well put, @kfogel. I'd like to add one thing:

if you're making the argument that language is defined by usage

Language is defined by collective usage. One person cannot change a language alone. If they deliberately misuse language which is widely known to have one meaning, it's false. If they stand to benefit from that lie, it's ethically wrong. To re-quote xkcd:

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

@ddevault I am not doing it out of spite. Quite honestly I did not know this license existed and find it good enough for my purposes. And yeah, thanks for pointing out that my repo is underrated ! 👍

I read this article: https://www.zdnet.com/article/open-source-licensing-war-commons-clause/

And I am convinced. Commons Clause is the way to go, honestly! It's great for developers!

My points still stand. Looking forward to your reply!

from n8n.

At this point, I'm not sure what more arguments @ddevault or I could make. If one ignores his, shall we say, somewhat more forceful style :-), we're saying the same thing, which is basically this:

He is not doing things in merely a "forceful style". He is being belligerent and deliberately invoking provocation on an innocent project.

There is a term "open source", and there is a very large, very broad group of people and organizations who agree on one specific, very clearly-defined meaning for that term. I'll list some of the organizations, just to give you an idea: the Open Source Initiative, the Free Software Foundation (yes, they agree with OSI about what licenses the term "open source" refers to), the U.S. government (yes, really: their procurement offices need to be accurate about terms like this, so they agree on what "open source" means), the Apache Software Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, IBM, and... well, virtually every other major tech company and organization that I can think of. That's right: their lawyers and executives and engineers (the ones who actually work with open source, anyway) all agree on the same meaning that @ddevault and I are saying the term has. They consistently use the term that way, and they don't use it to refer to any non-open-source licenses. This is not a coincidence!

So what? If I use the term differently, what's it gonna do? Who's gonna sue me? People will complain about something they paid ZERO for. Wow, big whoop. Maybe if someone committed code and complained the complaint would have a bit of legitimacy to it. But all I hear is whining and legalese from people who are trying to advocate for a certain agenda. Many of the companies (in particular: Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft) erode at the foundation for software freedoms in the first place. What Common clause is trying to do is enable lowly developers like us to make something of ourselves and our code and not get USED by Bigcorps that mostly take our work for little gain for ourselves. You may say, well, then just call your project "source available". But really I think this is just cope by the people set out to keep the status quo the same. I DO NOT want to have to contribute to projects for free for some little paltry donations like a goddamn beggar. I want my code to be open source OR free software but still have a chance at making some money. For this reason, I think OSI's definition is obselete in the current paradigm in software. AGPL is a reasonable alternative but I understand not all code can be AGPL, so open source + revision for actually being able to make money seems very reasonable to me. Can you not try to understand the other perspective or what?

So @kennymalac, if you're making the argument that language is defined by usage and that no one can formally control a non-trademarked term like "open source" in a strict legal sense -- an argument I agree with, by the way -- @janober is still doing something wrong.

Nah bro

As I wrote earlier: if you sell lemonade but label it "milk", even after people have asked you to please stop doing that, then folks have every right to be annoyed. We all had an agreed-on definition of "milk", and it's not because there's some authority controlling those terms. It's because "milk" has a widely understood meaning, and when you misapply it to something that's not milk, that makes extra work for everyone else -- they now have to make an extra effort to figure out what you're selling. They'll waste their time taking your bottle off the shelf and inspecting it, when you could have just labeled it accurately in the beginning.

@janober is not selling a goddamn thing. He is releasing what he made for free. lemonade and milk are two completely different things. in the US, it is ILLEGAL to sell even almond milk as milk. If he was selling a product and said it did something that it didn't, that would definetly be unethical. But all this guy did was use a word in a way that triggers idealogues like @ddevault. I understand why the director of OSI would be upset, the authority of his organization is actively being subverting by many corporations. I see this as inevitable to a certain extent, because what @ddevault and others are suggesting is utterly impractical.

from n8n.

@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."

from n8n.

I'm not sure who's being the most harmful to the open-source community in this thread. The software author who might truly not have been aware of the issue in the first place, or the people just being overtly rude and aggressive and assuming bad intent from the start...

from n8n.

Responding to @downeym:

I doubt that @janober had any strong expectation of making a bundle of cash this way (of course, I have no objection if he does). More likely he thought something like: "Well, I want people to be free to use this for non-commercial purposes, but if someone's going to make a lot of money with it, then I want a share of that!"

I've heard a lot of programmers say something like that. (Of course, they didn't then mislead people about their licensing, but my point here is about @janober's actual expectations.)

This kind of thought sounds reasonable on its surface (though in fact it's complex and laden with many assumptions about labor, marketplaces, and monopolies, which I won't go into here). For our purposes, the important thing about it is just that it's incompatible with open source licensing. Under open source, you don't get to claim a share of the profits other people make when they use a copy of your code. You might contract with them to provide support, or you might build a business on the code yourself and compete with them. And if you use the reciprocal (copyleft) style of open source licensing, then (under certain common circumstances) they'll have to share any modifications they make, under the same license -- but that's different from sharing profits. By definition, there is no open source license that requires profit sharing or any other kind of royalty-like payment, and there never can be, because it's contrary to the definition of open source.

from n8n.

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

from n8n.

https://opensource.org/faq#commercial

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

@tretinha You have failed to explain how it is unethical. Have you read my earlier reply? There is no way to police this.

@ddevault You are making demands of someone you have no association with and being generally rude. How come you have not addressed my points, and instead you continue on this tirade irresponsibly? I doubt you would contribute to this project even if it was free software. I don't think that you are even interested in discussing your premises, or engaging in intellectual discussion about this, which comes off as arrogant. Do you think that I am personally gaslighting open source, or just refusing to address any of my points?

from n8n.

And since xkcd is often relevant in more than one comic:

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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

Done.

from n8n.

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

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

@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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

Can you even hear yourself? Are you so wrapped up in self interest that you're unable to recognize the nonsense you're spewing and the harm it's going to have on an ecosystem that you owe your entire livelihood to?

from n8n.

I'm sorry but if someone is being agressive and rude towards me from the start, I'll take some time to evaluate the "solution" that this person offers me. Whatever the problem or the suggested solution are.

No kidding. @kfogel has been reasonable, but @ddevault has been unhinged from the jump-off. Not a great ambassador, IMO.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

As I read the CC clause form their page, it specifically allows what the author is wanting to forbid. Do I go by what the licnese says? OR do I go by what the author says it says? ALL of this would be avoided had he not used deceptive advertising. It seems he wants to to be source available and the CC clause states it is for the purpose of transiting from open source to source available which are not the same thing,

My reading of the various sources leads me to believe that the author doesn't know what the CC clause does as it appears to ensure I still have the right to commercialize a work that uses a CC component. Too bad it's just not open source. Then I wouldn't have wasted hours trying to remove the unneeded confusion.

This is not about people wanting to commercialize others' work. This is about someone wanting all the popularity of open source, while being the only one who can profit from it. It's all a plan to have a confusing license, get people to integrate it into their solutions, and then get sued by being choplogical over the license terms.

Whether intentional or accidental that is exactly what this situation looks like.

from n8n.

I have zero stake in this project. For what it's worth, I agree with every point you have made, although I don't feel it's as black and white as you make it out to be. That said, I disagree greatly with how you've delivered your argument. Us vs them, "you're either with us or against us" is a poor approach.

from n8n.

I think @ddevault is making a solid point there. Indeed, if what he is saying weren't true, the very concept of lying couldn't exist at all -- anyone could just claim that the words they said meant something different from their usual meanings when they said them.

from n8n.

@downeym are you kidding right now?

1. Publish a proprietary software project under the Commons Clause license with hopes to make a bunch of cash from gullible people.

That's assuming 1) that everyone shares as much knowledge as you do in terms of licenses, and the same cultural background as yours. I don't think I need to spend time explaining how wrong that is... 2) bad intent. There's nothing to prove that it's the case. No one gave the author a chance here.

2. Create untruthful advertising materials claiming it's "Open Source" to hook people in, despite knowing Commons Clause said not to do that.

That's, like, 1) but phrased differently.

3. Hide deep in the project documentations the truth that the project is not open source.

Deep? The title on the home page is literally mentioning "(Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause)". From someone who seems to know software licenses, you seem to be pretty bad at reading.

4. Try to get a lot of publicity on places like Product Hunt as an open source project.

Once again, the same point put differently.

5. Get questioned by open source leaders based upon the false advertising.

"questioned"? Really, that's your choice of words? Re-read the first comment of this thread, and the title while you're at it?

I love open-source software. I use them, I contribute to them. But heck, isn't it the home of the most exclusive people on Earth. The toxicity of this community is insane.

from n8n.

Publish a proprietary software project under the Commons Clause license with hopes to make a bunch of cash from gullible people.

This assumes bad faith in the already shaky accusation of hiding the fact that it's not open source™️

Hide deep in the project documentations the truth that the project is not open source.

Ah yes the LICENSE file, hidden deep in the mythical place called the project root.

Get questioned by open source leaders based upon the false advertising.

Open source leaders? Do they give you a badge when you defeat them in a PR review as well?

from n8n.

@Kernald, the big, bold-face headline of the project's home page is "Open Source Alternative
for Zapier/tray.io". I mean, come on: the misleading is right there -- it's literally the very first thing one sees about the project.

from n8n.

Especially when you double down after being informed of the error.

from n8n.

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.

from n8n.

There is no discussion, there are people gaslighting the open source community and people angry about being gaslit. A discussion about whether or not water is wet is a waste of time, unless one side stands to make a profit from convincing people it's dry.

from n8n.

@ddevault The very definition of wet is subjective. It's like you're trying to convince someone that they're bald when they keep pointing to the few strands of hair on their head as evidence that they're not. If you draw lines in the sand while also attacking the person they are going to respond emotionally and probably not in your favor.

from n8n.

PS2: I would change because right now you have a lot of effort being wasted in responding to people that don't care about the project, they care only about the open source definition. And no, these people will not contribute to with code (even if you change the licence to MIT), but at least you will get some peace.

If you changed the license to an actual open-source license, MIT or otherwise, I would contribute to this project in a heartbeat should the occasion arise. If you stop at redacting your lies, I will give you peace (and heartfelt appreciation). If you double down on gaslighting the open source community, I will be there in the comments every time you make the news.

from n8n.

And to clarify, the reason the term gaslighting is used, and the presumption of good faith is not extended, is because the author already knew about the issue at the time of writing.

from n8n.

unethical is claiming something to be open source when it's clearly not, how abusive!

from n8n.

@janober you said you need to sleep on it yesterday. Do you have an update?

from n8n.

Oh, how easily ethics and morals are set aside when the scent of money looms near. "I would never!", they'll say in their living rooms, reading the daily news, then forget it as soon as the opportunity arises to make a buck.

from n8n.

anyone could just claim that the words they said meant something different from their usual meanings when they said them

And that is precisely what @janober did:

1. Publish a proprietary software project under the Commons Clause license with hopes to make a bunch of cash from gullible people.
2. Create untruthful advertising materials claiming it's "Open Source" to hook people in, despite knowing Commons Clause said not to do that.
3. Hide deep in the project documentations the truth that the project is not open source.
4. Try to get a lot of publicity on places like Product Hunt as an open source project.
5. Get questioned by open source leaders based upon the false advertising.

from n8n.

From someone who seems to know software licenses, you seem to be pretty bad at reading.

"Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause" is not open source. The Commons Clause authors state so in their FAQ and warn people not to make such claims. And this project's maintainer even admitted that it wasn't open source much deeper in the project documentation FAQ's.

from n8n.

Especially when you double down after being informed of the error.

So is looking for solutions once you've been made aware of the issue doubling down? Yeah we don't speak the same English, sorry.

from n8n.

You're implying that the differences between open-source and source-available licenses are obvious to everyone. We have no insight on how the author, who's clearly not a native English speaker, chose the license, nor why. From his comments on this thread, he's trying to solve the issue, and finding alternatives, isn't he?

I agree he shouldn't be witch hunted over something that could of possibly been an error, but if he doesn't make the necessary changes to the license after this, that's a problem.

from n8n.

You're implying that the differences between open-source and source-available licenses are obvious to everyone.

If the misuse of open source already justifies two FAQ entries in the project documentation, then surely any confusion here can be cleared up through the same. Would only require one FAQ entry! I would be happy to suggest a copy for the author as a native English speaker if this is a concern - similar to how I've already offered a patch which corrects the use of the term open source.

We have no insight on how the author, who's clearly not a native English speaker, chose the license, nor why.

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

From his comments on this thread, he's trying to solve the issue, and finding alternatives, isn't he?

He's been presented with an alternative, he doesn't need to find it.

I'm sorry but if someone is being agressive and rude towards me from the start, I'll take some time to evaluate the "solution" that this person offers me. Whatever the problem or the suggested solution are.

from n8n.

Fair enough. But as long as the lies remain on the site, I will naturally withhold my forgiveness.

from n8n.

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

from n8n.

https://medium.com/conquering-corporate-america/gaslighting-for-beginners-4da0eddcf135

from n8n.

@janober Props for building something nice, that I'm sure people will get use out of. Regardless of how this plays out, I wish you the best of luck moving forward. It's a real shame that @ddevault chose to take an aggressive, hostile approach instead of taking a moment to privately educate you on the matter. I hope this situation doesn't discourage you, and I hope the @ddevault and the rest take a moment to reflect on the value of civility.

from n8n.

That's assuming 1) that everyone shares as much knowledge as you do in terms of licenses

And

Deep? The title on the home page is literally mentioning "(Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause)". From someone who seems to know software licenses, you seem to be pretty bad at reading.

You need to have specific knowledge of the commons clause, and that it's distinct from the Apache 2.0 and Creative Commons licenses. But wait, are we not assuming everyone shares as much knowledge about licenses as us? There's a contradiction here.

from n8n.

@Kernald claiming ignorance over license clauses doesn't excuse license abuse.

Sure, and if the author doesn't change anything eventually, then that's gonna be bad intent. This thread has been created less than 48 hours ago though... and from @janober's comments, he's looking for a way to solve that. There's no point in putting words and intents on him when we don't know what he's going to do with that.

from n8n.

@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?

from n8n.

@mjhea0 its 30k

from n8n.

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

from n8n.

Actually thought we stop with discussing till I get back as it then would hopefully stop anyway. Did not seem like it worked. Anyway, even though I am still reading I am still out till I had a chat with @massonpj . Just here to clarify something as it seems like it got misread.

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

@eitland Just wanted to clarify that the 30k was for consulting/support not hosting, so less generous. It says in the docs: "So to make it simpler do I hereby grant anybody the right to do consulting/support without prior permission as long as it is less than 30.000 USD per year."

from n8n.

@tretinha If it was "clearly not" open source there wouldn't be a discussion going.

from n8n.

Can you all please do me a favor and stop for a while. The discussion here is really not nice and constructive in any way. If it goes on like that it will not help to resolve the situation it will make it simply harder and harder.

Just got the email from @massonpj . For me it is now sadly again time to sleep but I will then write with him tomorrow and I have a very good feeling that we find a solution. It will probably not solve the greater issue behind all of that but it will solve it for n8n.

WIsh all of you a good night, no matter if now or much later.

Thanks!

from n8n.

@janober Seriously, just change the damn name to something like source available or free (as in beer) (as in beer is important or you might anger the FSF guys) and we can get moving. No point wasting time with politics.

PS: I like the free as in beer description, but even though it has no relation with free software you might still get some angry voices. So I would stick to the more conservative source available.

PS2: I would change because right now you have a lot of effort being wasted in responding to people that don't care about the project, they care only about the open source definition. And no, these people will not contribute to with code (even if you change the licence to MIT), but at least you will get some peace.

from n8n.

anyone could just claim that the words they said meant something different from their usual meanings when they said them

And that is precisely what @janober did:

1. Publish a proprietary software project under the Commons Clause license with hopes to make a bunch of cash from gullible people.

2. Create untruthful advertising materials claiming it's "Open Source" to hook people in, despite knowing Commons Clause said not to do that.

3. Hide deep in the project documentations the truth that the project is not open source.

4. Try to get a lot of publicity on places like Product Hunt as an open source project.

5. Get questioned by open source leaders based upon the false advertising.

I don't understand, what you're describing here is illegal, at the very least misrepresenting the clause, so why should this be debatable? Am I missing a key point here?

from n8n.

why should this be debatable?

No idea. Stubbornness, I guess.

from n8n.

@Kernald claiming ignorance over license clauses doesn't excuse license abuse.

from n8n.

@kfogel You're implying that the differences between open-source and source-available licenses are obvious to everyone. We have no insight on how the author, who's clearly not a native English speaker, chose the license, nor why. From his comments on this thread, he's trying to solve the issue, and finding alternatives, isn't he?

from n8n.

You're implying that the differences between open-source and source-available licenses are obvious to everyone.

If the misuse of open source already justifies two FAQ entries in the project documentation, then surely any confusion here can be cleared up through the same. Would only require one FAQ entry! I would be happy to suggest a copy for the author as a native English speaker if this is a concern - similar to how I've already offered a patch which corrects the use of the term open source.

We have no insight on how the author, who's clearly not a native English speaker, chose the license, nor why.

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

From his comments on this thread, he's trying to solve the issue, and finding alternatives, isn't he?

He's been presented with an alternative, he doesn't need to find it.

from n8n.