Pydantic Logfire

This smells a bit like someone is using the brand of a famous open-source tool they built to promote their startup. If so, that's lame; if the new business is unrelated to your open source project, branding it as Pydantic Logfire seems a bit disingenuous.

I think there's a less-misleading way to use open-source reputation for business credibility, though: "so-and-so business, by the creators of so-and-so project". Knowing that respected and skilled folks are working on a business is great! It's a fine distinction, but I think it matters.

If anyone is mislead about whether Pydantic is Logfire or visa-versa, I'll eat my hat.

Other than that, see my answer to the other comment.

It is related, though: the creator is the same, so you can expect the same DX.

Finding ways to reward people for building great open source software is something that we need more of. It's not lame at all.

For the record, I don't agree with the grandparent comment at all. None of this is "lame". It's a path to sustainable OSS and it's more obvious than ever that we need these pathways.

But to be fair, the branding here is a little weird. If you were living under a rock and hadn't heard of pydantic then the website reads like pydantic is the company and logfire is a product of said company. That's fine. But then you've also got a product called pydantic. Or is it now called pydantic pydantic? I realise it's kind of an extension to pydantic but the AI focus doesn't make it feel that way and so I think that's where the GP is coming from. Sorry to nitpick, I hope it does well.

From the website:

From the team behind Pydantic, Logfire is a new type of observability platform built on the same belief as our open source library — that the most powerful tools can be easy to use.

This is just how you brand when you have one product. If he made up a new brand to subsume both products nobody would recognize it, so he wisely decided to recycle the existing brand; familiar, and liked.

Google was originally just the search engine, without any qualifier. Now it's Google Search. In the same way, pydantic can become "Pydantic Validate" or something.

I think that's fair. It's a hard problem.

We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused, or just called us "pydantic".

I think Pydantic being the company name, and a standalone entity, and there being other products is fairly common. I think if Logfire is successful, it will end up just being known as "Logfire".

It’s very telling that you didn’t give an actual concrete example of how someone could get confused/misled, what that would look like, and what it’d result in. This is nothing more than a baseless whinge.

> We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused

I don’t see how anybody would have been confused in that scenario? People start new companies with new names all the time.

What you are actually doing is what is confusing. It’s a really weird branding choice to name an observability platform startup after a validation library.