Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

This isn’t open source; one of the directories is licensed under a proprietary, subscriptionware nonfree license.

The remainder is AGPL, which many people (including myself) consider nonfree as well.

Just two weeks ago we have outsourced Daytona (daytonaio) under an Apache license. We had long and deep discussions but finally decided that's the only thing that made sense.

Unfortunately you've also started spamming people about it, including those who previously unsubscribed from your marketing comms.

We’ve ramped up our outreach because experience shows it’s critical for building the contributor base and fast-tracking project evolution—our flurry of repo activity is a testament to this strategy. On the email front, a technical snag during our provider’s migration led to the mix-up where some subscribers were left enrolled. We’re on it. Meanwhile, we believe Daytona’s as a product will make up for the noise. Check our Friday release v0.7.0 for the proof in the pudding.

AGPL is Free Software according to the FSF, so I'm not sure who at all would contest that it isn't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30495737

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30496091

The FSF are anticapitalist zealots that think the ability to run a SaaS business using free software is a "loophole" in the GPL that needs to be closed. The AGPL is an unenforceable mess that's trying to be an EULA (but can't be).

How is freedom anticapitalist?

Restricting the freedom to keep local files local (that is, privacy) when operating a services business is the opposite of freedom.

It makes sense that you need to distribute sources when distributing binaries. It does not make sense to force people to disclose private internal business operations when operating a service. In fact, software licenses can’t do that - only EULAs can.

Services are not software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com