Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shutting down a product? Open source it.

robots.thoughtbot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#21

Post by gurkendoktor »

nirvana wrote: post #11

People talk about this as if it's an action you can take. The title even uses it as a verb: "open source" it. Is "open sourcing" even the decision of the developer, in reality? Sure, the developer can decide to release the code as open source. That's fine. But to make an open source project requires a lot more commitment than that[1]. An open source project is kinda like a startup. You need your product (the code) yo…

What you say is true for software that needs to be improved. But I use and love some semi-abandonware and couldn't care less about improvements: TextMate 1, NewsFire, Lineform, AAA game ports to OS X, lots of iOS software that is ever being updated once.

iOS currently makes for a good example, because all it takes for some old apps to use the Retina display is to recompile the very same source with newer dev tools. Sometimes it just takes that, or a small fixes to make software run on a new OS.

I'd pay more for software if the authors promised to open-source it the moment they drop support.

( Of course, the App Store has a problem similar to Ruby Gems - it is hard to transfer control of the main repository.)

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#22

Post by CPlatypus »

While bequeathing code to the community instead of having it buried with you is a very good thing it comes with a caveat. In most cases, it's not a good idea to pick up the result in its entirety - all of the code, the brand, the users, etc. That's baggage. It's a burden, not a help. In most cases it's better to make an explicit fork, or even just cherry-pick the best ideas and bits of code for use in a clearly separate project. If users think the new thing is better than the old, they'll migrate. If they don't, they won't feel entitled to come bugging you for support - or, if they do, you'll have a good reason to turn them away and concentrate on making the new thing great. Obviously you have to comply with the original licenses if you copy code, but you'd have to do that anyway. This way is likely to be far better for your own sanity and ultimately for users as well.

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#23

Post by diwank »

nirvana wrote: post #11

People talk about this as if it's an action you can take. The title even uses it as a verb: "open source" it. Is "open sourcing" even the decision of the developer, in reality? Sure, the developer can decide to release the code as open source. That's fine. But to make an open source project requires a lot more commitment than that[1]. An open source project is kinda like a startup. You need your product (the code) yo…

This is so important and yet most people don't realize it. A tremendous amount of effort goes into maintaining an open-source project. No software is "bug-free" for instance; and you have to continuously seave user feedback for bugs and fix them quickly.

This is a worrying trend. Most of the projects on github have become 'orphans'. I see no docs and worse - no activity for years even on some pretty interesting ones. Contrast that to Apache projects and their communities.

@patricksroberts I think @nirvana meant this in a more general sense.

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#24

Post by Croaky »

five18pm wrote: post #7
chrisacky wrote: post #6

I completely agree in that projects/products which have come to the end of their life cycle should opt at the possibility of open sourcing. But it's not always as simple as that. Some times, the feat of open sourcing something might takes considerable time, both from refactoring, and convincing people who need to be convinced that they shouldn't let the product rot. Also, I've not actually heard of Copycopter before,…

Also, I've not actually heard of Copycopter before, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to make the causative link between your announcement of shutting down, to also having AOL and Oink following suit. Correlation does not prove causation. (I've not actually heard of copycopter before). I think they were trying to joke about the shutdown. I don't think thoughtbot would have been under any illusion that the events we…

Hahaha. Yes, I was joking. Sorry about that, apparently not funny! :)

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#26

Post by compay »

This is certainly much better than just letting the software die a silent, anonymous death. At work we were about to do a project localized to a language nobody at the office speaks, so we were looking forward to using CopyCopter to work with the translators. I'm very glad Thoughtbot had the decency to release the code, so that we still have the option to use it.

I do hope, however, that the developers there continue to play a role in the project. Just "dumping" a product into the open source world without continuing to contribute to it can kill a product almost as effectively as shuttering it with no source release.

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#27

Post by batista »

tripzilch wrote: post #25

So, these guys openly admit they indirectly caused AIM to shut down and everybody is just congratulating them about going open source?! They should be drawn and quartered for that!! (no seriously guys, nice job on the open sourcing :) )

Actually, they should also be congratulated for causing AIM to shut down.

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#28

Post by Croaky »

compay wrote: post #26

This is certainly much better than just letting the software die a silent, anonymous death. At work we were about to do a project localized to a language nobody at the office speaks, so we were looking forward to using CopyCopter to work with the translators. I'm very glad Thoughtbot had the decency to release the code, so that we still have the option to use it. I do hope, however, that the developers there continue…

I've been in a Campfire room with the new maintainers for a few days. We've been coordinating the transition for a couple of weeks. Looking forward to knocking out a few more features and bugs in the next few days while they get used to the codebase.

Everyone's busy so we'll see how much time is needed and able to be spent by the new maintainers but we're happy to have found almost a dozen developers to lead maintenance across the two companies (Crowdtap and Iora Health) and we took the time to express a process and way of doing things to help make the project more efficient:

https://github.com/copycopter/style-guide

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#29

Post by compay »

Croaky wrote: post #28
compay wrote: post #26

This is certainly much better than just letting the software die a silent, anonymous death. At work we were about to do a project localized to a language nobody at the office speaks, so we were looking forward to using CopyCopter to work with the translators. I'm very glad Thoughtbot had the decency to release the code, so that we still have the option to use it. I do hope, however, that the developers there continue…

I've been in a Campfire room with the new maintainers for a few days. We've been coordinating the transition for a couple of weeks. Looking forward to knocking out a few more features and bugs in the next few days while they get used to the codebase. Everyone's busy so we'll see how much time is needed and able to be spent by the new maintainers but we're happy to have found almost a dozen developers to lead maintena…

Glad to hear that. Thanks very much for sharing your work!

Re: Shutting down a product? Open source it.

#30

Post by albertzeyer »

nirvana wrote: post #11

People talk about this as if it's an action you can take. The title even uses it as a verb: "open source" it. Is "open sourcing" even the decision of the developer, in reality? Sure, the developer can decide to release the code as open source. That's fine. But to make an open source project requires a lot more commitment than that[1]. An open source project is kinda like a startup. You need your product (the code) yo…

I have seen quite a few code bases, where the original author who didn't want to continue the project, just released the source code somewhere (as zlib, public domain, GPL or what ever) but nothing more.

If there was interest by some other developers, there was always some new open source project/community building itself up around the released code. And if not immediately, maybe a few years later.

E.g., some examples (where I was partly also involved in):

* OpenLieroX http://openlierox.net

* ioquake http://ioquake3.org/

* many projects here: http://icculus.org/projects/

* iodoom3: http://www.iodoom.org/ http://git.iodoom.org/ (still not much content there)

* https://github.com/id-Software

* Commander Genius: http://clonekeenplus.sourceforge.net/

* https://github.com/LaPingvino/The-Puzzle-Pits

...

Post reply on HN