[skwashd]

During a quick scan of the catalog I found a few issues.

Sentry isn't open source, even after their most recent license change. The Business Source License and variants are source available, not open source.

FireCMS is built on top of Firebase, rather than being an alternative to it. It's a similar story with the Jira CLI. They're open source, but they're useless without the backend to talk to.

Plausible Analytics and Papermark are both listed twice. Rustdesk is also listed twice, once as Rustdeck.

The GIMP isn't listed under photoshop. This was a surprise omission.

Many of these projects have commercial backers who offer a paid SaaS offering. Given this is the case I'm not sure linking to SaaS product site when claiming your site offers "Open-source alternatives to tools You pay for" is the expected behaviour. I was expecting it to link to the open source code.

[SparkyMcUnicorn]

> The GIMP isn't listed under photoshop. This was a surprise omission.

Photopea is listed and is not open source. To my knowledge it's not even source available.

[andy99]

A better name would be "Free (gratis) alternatives". The point here seems to be finding software you don't have to pay for rather than anything specifically about open source.

[pydry]

There is zero practical difference between "free and source available" and "open source" for 99.99% of users.

I do wonder sometimes why some people get so particular about drawing this specific distinction because it happens on so many threads. Is the freedom to run a competitor to sentry's saas using the code they wrote that coveted a freedom?

I can see why Bezos wants this, perhaps. And by extension wealthy big tech shareholders eating that profit too.... but who else?

Moreover, "Source available" (a suggested alternative) implies the software is potentially or even likely to be paid which is material difference for those 99.9% of users but is definitely not the case.

I get the sense that there is an underlying political ax being ground by gatekeeping this particular definition. I dont buy that this is about "just calling things by their name" when for non-bezos users the distinction is inconsequential.

[vitiral]

The difference is the freedom to modify, fix, and even fork for yourself if the need arises.

[ezekg]

You obviously know nothing of the licenses you're discussing. It's so frustrating to see this fallacy repeated over and over. SSPL, ELv2, BUSL, and FSL are all forkable. Most even more so than GPL!

[vitiral]

I was referring to no license. I was referring to this statement

> There is zero practical difference between "free and source available" and "open source" for 99.99% of users.

"Free and source available" is not a license. Without a license it is copyrighted.

[pydry]

"Open source" is not a license either.

"Free and source available" describes a group of licenses including sentry's.

[pydry]

That is not the difference. You can do all of that with sentry.

[mkesper]

Llama is not open source, either, despite Meta calling it that.

[andy99]

Also, llama (a link to Meta's site which is effectively a roundabout way to get the model weights) is proposed as an alternative to OpenAI. Open AI offers a full API, chatgpt, etc, llama(2) is some weights, they're not really parallel alternatives. HF would be a better link, you can pay them to serve open source models I believe.

[johnrushx]

do you know good open source LLMs I can add?

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

I’d bet a fair bit on most realistic users of this website benefiting from Sentry’s inclusion, rather than being hindered by it.

I suppose that maybe this website could be re-labelled ‘source-available’ to appease purists that actually care about this. But practically everyone won’t be affected by the fact that Sentry’s license prohibits creating a direct competitor to Sentry’s hosted service, certainly the intended audience.

[toenail]

> I suppose that maybe this website could be re-labelled ‘source-available’ to appease purists that actually care about this.

Huh, maybe? Words have meaning. It's not about "appeasing purists", it's about not spreading misinformation.

[creesch]

Bit of a tone deaf response to be honest. Not to mention that you are only responding to a very specific bit of the feedback.

[johnrushx]

thx a lot, you've done an impressive scan. I will fix the data