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

Show HN: Bud – A new build tool for C# projects

bud.urbas.si

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: Show HN: Bud – A new build tool for C# projects

#11

Post by kybernetikos »

rjbwork wrote: post #9
gnoway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://bud.urbas.si/Licence Free for personal/noncom/oss, contact for commercial. So probably not. IMO, this will have to offer super tremendous advantages over MSBuild to have any chance at gaining traction. The latter is free, open source, easy to extend, already fits with ci/cd and is the native build tool for the platform.

Agreed. I saw it, was excited, then saw non-free and immediately disregarded it as practical for work. We're not going to pay for an unproven MSBuild alternative when MSBuild, despite its warts, works fine.

I'm quite prepared to pay for tools that offer a meaningful productivity boost, and while I haven't tried Bud yet, I've had lots of misery with MSBuild and complex builds. I think there is plenty of room in the ms ecosystem for a better build tool, and if it's better enough, I'd be prepared to pay.

I don't think it'd be too hard to make a build tool as much better than msbuild as intellij is better than eclipse.

This whole topic nearly triggered a rant about how badly broken most build is, and how massively it smashes you out of your flow to have an irritating build problem show up. Build problems impact the productivity of every member of your team.

Re: Show HN: Bud – A new build tool for C# projects

#12

Post by urbas »

kybernetikos wrote: post #11
rjbwork wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I saw it, was excited, then saw non-free and immediately disregarded it as practical for work. We're not going to pay for an unproven MSBuild alternative when MSBuild, despite its warts, works fine.

I'm quite prepared to pay for tools that offer a meaningful productivity boost, and while I haven't tried Bud yet, I've had lots of misery with MSBuild and complex builds. I think there is plenty of room in the ms ecosystem for a better build tool, and if it's better enough, I'd be prepared to pay. I don't think it'd be too hard to make a build tool as much better than msbuild as intellij is better than eclipse. This…

Hey, thanks for the feedback!

Bud will always be free for open source projects.

I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would like to determine what would suit Bud the best.

Maybe something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too. And perhaps dual-licenced for proprietary cases (something like qt).

Anyways, any feedback on this is topic would be very welcome!

Thanks a bunch!

Re: Show HN: Bud – A new build tool for C# projects

#13

Post by egeozcan »

urbas wrote: post #12
kybernetikos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite prepared to pay for tools that offer a meaningful productivity boost, and while I haven't tried Bud yet, I've had lots of misery with MSBuild and complex builds. I think there is plenty of room in the ms ecosystem for a better build tool, and if it's better enough, I'd be prepared to pay. I don't think it'd be too hard to make a build tool as much better than msbuild as intellij is better than eclipse. This…

Hey, thanks for the feedback! Bud will always be free for open source projects. I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would like to determine what would suit Bud the best. Maybe something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too. And perhaps dual-licenced for proprietary cases (something like qt). Anyways, any feedback on this…

> something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too

Would this be enforceable, though?

Re: Show HN: Bud – A new build tool for C# projects

#14

Post by belorn »

egeozcan wrote: post #13
urbas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, thanks for the feedback! Bud will always be free for open source projects. I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would like to determine what would suit Bud the best. Maybe something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too. And perhaps dual-licenced for proprietary cases (something like qt). Anyways, any feedback on this…

> something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too Would this be enforceable, though?

Complex answer, but simplified the answer would be yes.

The primary reason why it would be enforceable is that you need a license to run a program (copying to ram, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar...). A build program's license could thus include any type of conditions which dictate terms for usage, including what kind of license that project has.

The only limits are those inherent to copyright itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_...), and consumer protection laws. Consumer protection law would be the best guess as to limit what kind of conditions a product has after sale, but so far most legal system has chosen not to do so, and it get even more complex area when the product is given away for free.

Re: Show HN: Bud – A new build tool for C# projects

#15

Post by egeozcan »

belorn wrote: post #14
egeozcan wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too Would this be enforceable, though?

Complex answer, but simplified the answer would be yes. The primary reason why it would be enforceable is that you need a license to run a program (copying to ram, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar... ). A build program's license could thus include any type of conditions which dictate terms for usage, including what kind of license that project has. The only limits are those inherent…

Thanks for the explanation. The complexity of the copyright system never fails to surprise me.
Post reply on HN