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

Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

app.streamlinehq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#71

Post by inglor_cz »

scim-knox-twox wrote: post #42
inglor_cz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Have no reasonable and reliable way to determine what they mean." Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means? "So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards." Backward and forward with respect to what? Writing language down in an alphabet is more precise, but only ot…

> Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means? But that's the problem. You don't know what the icon for Wi-Fi means, until you do.

Same with the alphabet. Someone has to teach you what A means and how is it pronounced.

That is quite a normal task in human civilization, we do not come out of the womb pre-programmed to be literate.

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#73

Post by [deleted] »

vincent-lemoign wrote: post #36
pabs3 wrote: post #11

Which open source license are they released under?

Those 5 icon sets, Bangalore and Freemoji sets are all licensed under the Creative Commons - CC BY 4.0 which lets you use them as you want. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Other premium icon sets aren't open-source, so using them would require a backlink or a purchase.

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#74

Post by [deleted] »

ghosty141 wrote: post #68
vincent-lemoign wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 5 icon sets, Bangalore and Freemoji sets are all licensed under the Creative Commons - CC BY 4.0 which lets you use them as you want. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Other premium icon sets aren't open-source, so using them would require a backlink or a purchase.

What does Open Source even mean in this context? To me this would mean getting the source files for the icons.

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#75

Post by jobigoud »

SCLeo wrote: post #65
xunn0026 wrote: post #54

I have learned to stay away from open-core icon sets. It seems like they are doing a very nice balancing act where the icons you need later on happen to be in the paid section. I also dislike this is promoted as an open source icon set. This is a commercial product providing free samples. By design, it has a funnel of free / 'open source' users of which some will be turned into customers. Finally, it's amazing to me…

Exactly this. Whenever I tried to find some free fonts/icons/illustrations/sprites online, I always got tricked into one of those websites that have the word "free" in its title, but most of the content is locked behind a paywall. Now I think about it, maybe we should have a blocklist that automatically removes results that invole this kind of deceptive behavior from search results.

Same with 3D assets. There is a website called Free 3D dot com, with page title "3D models for free" and when you search anything their result page literally says "Free 3D models" but every other result is actually a paid model with no way to filter.

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#76

Post by Aeolun »

vincent-lemoign wrote: post #57
Aeolun wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~~I see the catch. Billed yearly. So the minimum you pay for access is $240.~~ ~~That may not be much for the quality you are getting, but my fontawesome infinite access pack was a lot cheaper.~~ Edit: This was wrong. The catch is that you can only download 100 icons at a time, and you can’t download any more when your subscription expires. The system tries to detects bots, so you cannot automatically download the fu…

You can purchase for 1 month too. No need to subscribe for annual pricing if you don't need icons or illustrations throughout the year. Our design process is incredibly intensive. https://medium.com/streamline-icons/create-more-beautiful-an... Which is why a lot of folks choose us over other icon libraries: https://streamlinehq.com/wall-of-love If you need Purchasing Power Parity, please reach out to hello@streamline…

Haha, no need. I can afford it (if I wanted to badly enough).

Right now it’s at the edge of “I need an actual use case for these things, instead of buying them just in case.”

I completely missed the monthly option! Buying them once for $39 and them using them forever feels shifty though. At least if I paid $240 it’d feel sort of fair ;)

What is up with that 100 icons per project though? If I’m paying for icons I want to have unlimited use out of them (especially on websites), not an arbitrary limit. I doubt I’d ever use more than 100 per site, or that you’d enforce that limit, but even if it’s irrational it still bothers me.

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#77

Post by mattbee »

xunn0026 wrote: post #54

I have learned to stay away from open-core icon sets. It seems like they are doing a very nice balancing act where the icons you need later on happen to be in the paid section. I also dislike this is promoted as an open source icon set. This is a commercial product providing free samples. By design, it has a funnel of free / 'open source' users of which some will be turned into customers. Finally, it's amazing to me…

It is open source, and it's commercial. It's both. The word "Upgrade" is right there at the top of the page. It's not in the last surprising, or hidden, and thousands of businesses here promote themselves with a freemium product.

That doesn't detract from the generosity of giving something away - the only reason it's not been forked and improved by others (for free) is that nobody blinkin' wants to without payment.

Just take what's free, or pay for what's not! I don't know why that's depressing at all.

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#78

Post by saladuh »

thyrox wrote: post #61

The definition of open source is getting blurry day by day. Just today I was looking for an infinite scroll JavaScript library and even though it's oss with 7k+ github star, you still need to buy a commercial licence to use it. I really wish we had separate open source licence for such projects which require a commercial use licence. (1) https://infinite-scroll.com/

The definition of open source requires that you must be allowed to use the software for commercial purposes. While this library does have a commercial license available, it is dual licensed under the GPL 3.0, which is an open source license that allows for commercial use. Therefore it is open source, and of course allows you to use the product in a commercial product, provided you comply with the GPL.

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#79

Post by samwillis »

xunn0026 wrote: post #54

I have learned to stay away from open-core icon sets. It seems like they are doing a very nice balancing act where the icons you need later on happen to be in the paid section. I also dislike this is promoted as an open source icon set. This is a commercial product providing free samples. By design, it has a funnel of free / 'open source' users of which some will be turned into customers. Finally, it's amazing to me…

> it's amazing to me as a programmer how commercial minded designers are in tech

While the criticism of this being called "open source" is somewhat valid. The suggestion that people creating usable graphics for the community should do so for free is a little frustrating. It's a bit like the memes where designers/photographers/ect are asked to do work for "exposure". The devaluation of creative output is quite sad, people who go out of their way to create something you can use for small fee should be held up as examples of the best of the community.

The vast majority of people who "create" (rather than contribute to) an open source projects are doing so for some sort of "commercial" reason. Wether it's an ambition to built a business around it, promote themselves as an expert, or being done as part of study to further themselves, its all about personal growth which translates to an income.

I fear we are all becoming too used to building upon the "free" foundations of open source and it blinds us to the creativity that goes into these types of projects.

> If a library has a community, it would be forked the 2nd day if it tries to pull something like this

I also find this frustrating as an attitude towards open source, the "open core" concept is completely valid and isn't an argument to fork. With most open source projects the majority of the work is contributed by a very small group of people, true if you frustrate a core contributor they may justifiably fork the project. However we should champion open source projects where the core team find a way to commercialise it in a sustainable way, when done well it only benefits the community.

When picking a foundation to build a business on, the advantages of picking one where there is a commercial organisation supporting the project as a core of their own business model is well known. Examples I can think of:

- Ionic Framework and Capacitor from Ionic

- Tailwind (actually a brilliant counter example with Tailwind UI being the commercial upgrade)

- Wagtail from Torchbox

- Wordpress and Automattic

- Docker

- HashiCorp

Re: Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create

#80

Post by prmoustache »

vincent-lemoign wrote: post #36
pabs3 wrote: post #11

Which open source license are they released under?

Those 5 icon sets, Bangalore and Freemoji sets are all licensed under the Creative Commons - CC BY 4.0 which lets you use them as you want. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Other premium icon sets aren't open-source, so using them would require a backlink or a purchase.

Creative Commons licenses aren't open source licences. Your phrasing is misleading. They are however copyleft as they allow for redistribution and modification and this is the word you should be using.
Post reply on HN