This isn't okay - the author is selling their own alternative to Sentry, 'reusing' Sentry's open-source client SDK's, while spreading FUD about self-hosting Sentry.

I've been self-hosting Sentry for over 10 years: Sentry is installed by running `git clone`, editing one or two configuration files, and running ./install.sh. It requires 16GB RAM if you enable the full feature set. That includes automatically recording user sessions on web or mobile for replay, and support for end-to-end tracing (so seeing which database queries your api asks for in response to a button tap in your mobile app).

Sentry has a wonderful self-hosting team that's working hard to make Sentry's commercial feature set available, for free, to everyone that needs a mature error tracking solution. You can talk to them on discord and they listen and help.

Just for transparency, are you by any chance a member of this self-hosting team or a sentry employee? Is it a coincidence that your keybase name is georghendrik according to your profile, and the painter _Georg Hendrik_ Breitner painted a picture called "Sentry"? https://www.demesdagcollectie.nl/en/collection/hwm0055

It seems like all the FUD in the article is copy-pasted from Sentry's own docs, though, no? And assuming Sentry's SDKs are open source and licensed appropriately (which seems to be the case), there's no issue (legal or moral) with directing users to use the Sentry SDK to communicate with a different, compatible product.

OP built a product because they were frustrated by Sentry's seeming hostility toward self-hosting. It doesn't feel like OP decided to build a competing product and then thought it would be a good marketing strategy to falsely push the idea that Sentry is difficult to self-host.

FWIW I've never self-hosted Sentry, but poking around at their docs around it turns me off to the idea. (I do need a Sentry-like thing for a new project I'm building right now, but I doubt I'll be using Sentry itself for it.) Even if it's possible to run with significantly less than 16GB (like 1GB or so), just listing the requirements that way suggests to me that running in a bare-bones, low-memory configuration isn't well tested. Maybe it's all fine! But I don't feel confident about it, and that's all that matters, really.

TBH most of the FUD in the OP is straight from Sentry's own website.

Regarding using the SDKs, I'm telling my users to take Sentry at their word when they wrote "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge [..] to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use"