[whit537]

Don't forget that it reverts to Apache 2.0 after three years—eventually open source for the nit-pickers. ;^)

[disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]

[cosmojg]

You should probably use your position to get the title of this blog post changed, then. "CodeCov will eventually be Open Source" is far less deceptive.

Or, more elegantly, "CodeCov is now Source Available".

[thinkmassive]

Exact text copied from the license file:

    Change Date:2023-06-29          2027-01-01
    
    Change License:       Apache License, Version 2.0


    Effective on the Change Date, or the fourth anniversary of the first publicly available distribution of a specific version of the Licensed Work under this License, whichever comes first, the Licensor hereby grants you rights under the terms of the Change License, and the rights granted in the paragraph above terminate.

Did Sentry inadvertently open source CodeCov under Apache terms as of June 29, 2023?

[whit537]

Good catch, thanks! Fixing in https://github.com/codecov/self-hosted/pull/6.

[closewith]

I'm not sure you can undo this with a pull request.

[whit537]

This mistake only occurs in the self-hosted repo, which contains very little code. All of the "real" code is in the other four repos, each of which have their own LICENSE file that did not have this mistake.

[Pannoniae]

Yes you can. If someone claimed "I can use it because they accidentally published the wrong license and swiftly corrected it", that wouldn't hold in court.

[closewith]

Would you have any precedent for that? I think in most of the world, that would hold in court.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Okay, then either title the page "CodeCov will be Open Source in 3 years", or wait 3 years and then release a post titled "A really old version of CodeCov is now Open Source".

[pseudalopex]

Is this an official statement we can ignore the license differences? Or are Sentry nit pickers also?