[knowald]

By this logic, should companies never donate to open source because any contribution could be labeled as marketing? The $750K will have real, tangible benefits for open source projects regardless of Sentry's motivations. It's a net positive. And we all know how many profitable companies built on open source give nothing back at all.

The point about "open source in name only" due to hosting complexity overlooks that this is a natural consequence of the product's evolution, not malicious intent. Enterprise-grade scaling of such monitoring requires sophisticated infrastructure. Suggesting they should artificially keep it simple for self-hosters would hold back product development.

[vanschelven]

It's only natural evolution in an environment in which there is no price for self-hosters giving up, which brings us back to the point I made originally :-)

I agree about the real, tangible benefits for open source. But wouldn't you agree there's at least _some_ point on the scale of evil where donor motivations can be questioned?