Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

news.ycombinator.com

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

#21
post #10

Upload the code to github.com. Use a permissive license like 2-clause BSD or MIT, or even better make it public domain. You can add compiled binaries using releases: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software

OTOH, if you would resent someone repackaging your work and selling it for a profit, use a GPL variant.

Re: Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

#22
post #10

Upload the code to github.com. Use a permissive license like 2-clause BSD or MIT, or even better make it public domain. You can add compiled binaries using releases: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software

Warning: using a permissive license like BSD or MIT will make certain people hate you. I was a bit shocked to discover this.

The author is the one most likely to be upset when slightly rebranded versions of the program hit the app store.

Re: Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "discussions" happen all the time, so I have no idea which one you're referring to, but the only reason anyone on the GPL side "gets mad" is because those on the BSD side whine childishly whenever someone puts something under the GPL.

As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works how they see fit. GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.

Actually, at the moment, it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under. GPL advocates make arguments for use of GPL. BSD advocates, as you've just demonstrated, prefer ad hominem attacks on RMS when they don't get what they selfishly feel entitled to.

Re: Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "discussions" happen all the time, so I have no idea which one you're referring to, but the only reason anyone on the GPL side "gets mad" is because those on the BSD side whine childishly whenever someone puts something under the GPL.

As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works how they see fit. GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.

GPL-like licenses are designed to protect the freedoms of users at the expense of the freedoms downstream developers (or repackagers) would prefer to have. A Red Hat customer always gets full source code for all the GPL'ed software Red Hat sells them.

BSD-like licenses emphasize the rights of downstream developers (and repackagers) at the expense of the freedoms of their users. A Cisco user has no access to all the originally BSD-licensed software inside their routers.

Re: Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works how they see fit. GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.

Actually, at the moment, it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under. GPL advocates make arguments for use of GPL. BSD advocates, as you've just demonstrated, prefer ad hominem attacks on RMS when they don't get what they selfishly feel entitled to.

> it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under

except, according to RMS and his fans, any choice but GPL is "wrong".

Re: Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

#27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works how they see fit. GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.

GPL-like licenses are designed to protect the freedoms of users at the expense of the freedoms downstream developers (or repackagers) would prefer to have. A Red Hat customer always gets full source code for all the GPL'ed software Red Hat sells them. BSD-like licenses emphasize the rights of downstream developers (and repackagers) at the expense of the freedoms of their users. A Cisco user has no access to all the o…

Yes, I understand the difference. My point is that RMS and his fans are near-religious in their belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

Re: Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

#28
Do it. In fact I think it would be cool if all project that end up shutting down ended up being open sourced. There is no real reason to keep them closed. (I would argue that most projects could be open sources while they are running too, but that is a different story.)

Re: Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

#30
post #10

Upload the code to github.com. Use a permissive license like 2-clause BSD or MIT, or even better make it public domain. You can add compiled binaries using releases: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software

Warning: using a permissive license like BSD or MIT will make certain people hate you. I was a bit shocked to discover this.

Warning, if you use a viral licence like GPL some (different) people will hate you.
Post reply on HN