HN Explorer

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

31 points by markdodwell ↗ HN
Wondering whether to open source an old project I worked on, and abandoned... It's a native Mac app for building static mockups (iOS and web apps).

I doubt anyone would be interested, but thought it worth asking, see if anyone has any opinions.

Screenshot: http://cl.ly/image/0o1h0q1L3u1o/o

58 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] thread
nppc
You can sell the source code for some one interested to take it up and develop further as a commercial product. Just OpenSourcing your code does not guarantee the success of the project.
domness
I'd certainly like to work on it if it went open source.
kidmar
Work on it and sell it or got open source, but please don't leave abandoned. there is way too much (good) software which died this way
moepstar
Yeah, please put it on GitHub or something - I'd love to see it come back to life :)
arunagarwal
Love to see this open source! Do not kill
raving-richard
This is an area where (I think) it can't hurt to make it free. Simply chuck a license header at the start of each file, put a readme which states "this has been abandoned, but I'll happily link to anyone who wants to make it alive again" and put the whole lot up somewhere (e.g. github).

My suggestion (because it's abandoned) is to use a permissive license.

vjdhama
Make it open source, maybe someone can bring it back to life.
girvo
Yes! I'd be super keen to use it, and hack on the source. It looks great :)
fotcorn
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

sillysaurus2
Warning: using a permissive license like BSD or MIT will make certain people hate you. I was a bit shocked to discover this.
akama
Who gets mad for this reason?
sillysaurus2
I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it.

Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to be taken away, and therefore BSD and MIT licenses should be strongly opposed.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
nknighthb
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.
stephenr
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.

nknighthb
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.
stephenr
> 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".

nknighthb
So what? Lots of people think lots of things are wrong that lots of other people disagree with. That has nothing to do with anything I've said.

You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way, but that's not at all what it's about. The subjective merits of licenses are not at issue in any way, shape, or form.

stephenr
> You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way

Sorry my name isn't RMS. I don't have to "win".

belorn
That is false, and now you are representing someone else opinion incorrecly. Would you like having other saying "according to stephenr and people like him, he thinks ..."

  "Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses,
  or some other permissive non-copyleft license,
  is not doing wrong*"
- last sentence at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html

"Is not doing wrong", the Exact word for word opposite to your claim.

Now please tell that you are sorry for misrepresenting someone else opinion and promise never to do it again. It is a shameful act.

stephenr
From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

>The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom.

> The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If you want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage available to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later.

If that isn't RMS saying he believes its wrong to release code under a BSD/MIT/etc permissive license, what is it?

This is the whole reason so many people use BSD or MIT (or similar) these days - they just want to write code and let others use it. RMS seems to be locked in some kind of fantasy world where if someone uses something other than GPL, it will mean the end of the world.

For extra kicks - http://blog.libertymcateer.com/2013/06/stallmans-blindspot-o...

Now please say you are sorry for cherry picking one comment from the website of an ORGANISATION I NEVER MENTIONED and attributing it to A PERSON.

belorn
You seem so confused, and you seem so angry at the world.

The goal that RMS has been striving for are: The users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

When people create proprietary software, then that is counter to RMS goal. proprietary software denies the user under threat of lawsuit the freedom to copy, distribute, study, change and improve (and at times run) the software.

BSD or MIT provides software to anyone, including people who use it for good, and people who use it for bad. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, it simply lie down and provided software indiscriminately.

To compare it to an similar goal, non-profit aid organizations try to provided money to extremely poor people. Their goal is to help people not starve to death and help improve their lives. However, they do not want their money to go to criminals, thieves, and drug cartels as that would hurt their overarching goal. Doing nothing, i.e giving money indiscriminately, would be an act of weakness. The act however of giving money to poor would still not be "wrong".

It is not wrong to indiscriminately give money to poor, but it is not the best way. It can even hurt the overarching goal of improving peoples lives.

(That you are shamelessly misrepresenting someone else opinion is a problem. I am deeply sorry for you and I hope you can find help.)

stephenr
> You seem so confused, and you seem so angry at the world.

I'm neither of those things. I've commented on one very specific topic - RMS/etc and their cult-like dedication to anti-developer, anti-corporate software licences.

My comments on this have not varied, so I don't know why you think I'm confused.

This issue is also a tiny fraction of what makes up the world, and while this issue concerns me, I'm hardly angry about it. Even if I were, how does that equate to "angry with the world"?

> The goal that RMS has been striving for are: The users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

I'm well aware of his stated goals.

> BSD or MIT provides software to anyone, including people who use it for good, and people who use it for bad.

"use it for bad" - if the thing they want to do is so bad, why would they be bothered about breaking a license in the first place? Let's come back tot hat later.

> non-profit aid organizations try to provided money to extremely poor people. Their goal is to help people not starve to death and help improve their lives. However, they do not want their money to go to criminals, thieves, and drug cartels as that would hurt their overarching goal.

Ok so first off. You just compared a HUGE community of software developers who use BSD/MIT licences, to drug cartels and thieves. Seriously? Besides the ridiculousness of the comparison, its downright fucking insulting.

A better comparison would be a charity run by a church group, that puts its idealogical belief system before the goal of raising more money for the poor. This actually happened in Australia a few years ago. Basically, the Salvation Army complained because a song given freely by a comedian for a Christmas CD (to generate funds for them to use to, you know, help the poor) makes lighthearted jokes about christianity (i.e. saying he doesn't believe jesus is magical).

This is no different than RMS (through the GPL) alienating hundreds if not thousands of companies who are willing to contribute to open source efforts, but also expect to be able to viably sell a product based on said code.

RMS goal is explicitly not "better code". If I wrote a 100% compatible alternative to GCC tomorrow, that produced 500% more efficient binaries, with a 200% speed increase in compile time, but released it under the BSD license, RMS would say "we can't use this" - not because its not better. Because someone else might ALSO take that product, package it up somehow, and make money from people willing to pay for it. Does that other product prevent him from using the original? No. Does it prevent me, the original author from using, improving, or even making money from the original product? No.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't use the GPL license. Not at all. If you feel its right for you do that. I'm saying don't get on some high fucking horse telling people who choose not to use GPL, that what they're doing is "wrong" (either directly or indirectly, or via comparison to thieves, drug cartels and other criminals) because it doesn't fit with your specific ideology.

belorn
I know that reading skills are sometimes low, but seriously, you should try reread what I wrote.

> Ok so first off. You just compared a HUGE community of software developers who use BSD/MIT licences, to drug cartels and thieves

No, I described the BSD/MIT community as one that indiscriminately gives (in the comparison, people who give indiscriminately money to poor people who ask). Which then comes back to you being confused. If you are not confused, I can not see how you so completely misunderstood it.

> If I wrote a 100% compatible alternative to GCC tomorrow, that produced 500% more efficient binaries, with a 200% speed increase in compile time, but released it under the BSD license

If I gave 500% more money to people in need than the red cross, but gave it indiscriminately to anyone who ask, would that improve peoples life? Army lords that recruits child armies would be happy to get some of that money, as would drug cartels. Terrorist also. But 500% is a bigger number than 100% and I am not preventing the original target of helping poor people. Poor people in need, terrorists and drug cartels alike get money! Win-Win right?

Last: I'm not telling you that you should use the GPL. Not at all. If you feel BSD/MIT is right for you do that. I'm saying don't get on some high fucking horse telling people who choose not to use BSD, that what they're doing is "wrong" because it doesn't fit with your specific ideology.

stephenr
> you should try reread what I wrote

you know you are right. Absolutely, you weren't comparing those who provide code under non-GPL licenses to cartels and thieves.

You were, and are comparing companies and individuals make 100% legal use of code that is released under a software license you happen to disagree with, to cartels, thieves and apparently now terrorists.

That's so much better.

> Last: I'm not telling you that you should use the GPL

RMS/etc is telling everyone loud and clear that non-GPL code is "wrong", hence those using a BSD/MIT license are wrong-doers.

Again, so much better.

belorn 

  "Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses,
  or some other permissive non-copyleft license,
  is not doing wrong*"
When you can find a quote that contradicts that, you can claim that RMS/etc is telling everyone that non-gpl code is wrong. Until then, you can keep repeating this falsehood and I will keep looking at you as if you were a crazy person.
stephenr
> The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code.
belorn
The free software movement was created to stop the proprietary software model. It is the reason the movement was created.

For profit companies are created in order to create profit. Environmentalism was created to regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment. Police was created to stop criminals.

Organizations has goals, and they want to achieve them. Permissive license both helps the free software movement, but also makes their goal harder to achieve, thus they favor Copyleft licenses which only helps the free software movement. It doesn't make permissive bad, wrong, evil or any other labels like that. It simply is not as good as copyleft for achieving the free software movements goal.

In what way is this surprising?

stephenr
RMS doesn't just "favour" GPL licensed code - he actively rejects objectively better code and even rejects collaborating with other projects, simply because they are not GPL licensed.

So, how is that not calling something "bad"?

stephenr
Further-more, (i knew i'd find the damn quote eventually):

> Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better.

http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-licensing&m=89249041326259&w=2

teddyh
What? That quote does not support your claim either. What the quote calls “non-free” software is proprietary software. BSD licensed software is, on the contrary, free software.

I have seen hints of this misconception before, but is this really a common thing? Do some people really believe that “free software” is exclusively GPL software?

stephenr
I'll accept your point, but the FSF messaging about this is not clear - one one page it lists BSD as "a free software licence" but on another identifies it separately (both in text and in a diagram) to "free software".

Either way, RMS comments/actions re: BSD licensed code still don't match up with the "official" policy.

rbanffy
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.

stephenr
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.
rbanffy
For some, the rights of the user are non-negotiable. Considering how much our freedoms depend on being able to trust our computers and networks, I am very much inclined to think that way too.
belorn
In total contrast to all BSD fans and their near-religious belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

Is it now that I should do some ad hominem attacks on openbsd project leader, just so the message really sinks in?

stephenr
> In total contrast to all BSD fans and their near-religious belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

The difference is, anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit.

Using GPL code means you have to "drink the kool-aid" - they don't just think any other choice is wrong, they force their view onto others.

rbanffy
> anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit.

Anyone but the users of "improved" versions.

stephenr
So you're working on the assumption that Fred took some of my BSD code, improved it, released it as a product, and Bob has paid for a commercial license to use it. Now Bob says he wants the source code for Fred's product.

How is it my right or the right of the user to demand what Fred do with the code he wrote?

belorn
Saying: "The difference is that my choice is right", is not helping you. It only strengthen the images of fundamentalism that you are carrying for BSD.

You do not just think any other choice is wrong, you are forcing your view onto others. Please stop.

stephenr
> You do not just think any other choice is wrong, you are forcing your view onto others.

How am I forcing my view onto others?

I take issue with people claiming the GPL is somehow "good" while BSD is "bad", and thus I reply. I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't USE the GPL. I'm saying stop acting like a door knocking jehovah witness trying to convert everyone else to use the GPL.

tmikaeld
I think it is the fact that some companies create crippleware open source project where parts of the core are open source and additional key parts are licensed under a sub-license that requires payment. Also, MIT and BSD doesn't enforce you to share added changes, fixes or additions to a project because of this - thus, hurting the open source community by the project not gaining (possibly) important or significant changes.

From a company standpoint, this makes sense if the parts are large and costed a lot to develop. Some companies eventually make these parts available eventually, some don't though - possible because open sourcing something that you initially charge for, could piss some customers off when they realize that they could have gotten it free.

rbanffy
The author is the one most likely to be upset when slightly rebranded versions of the program hit the app store.
spdegabrielle
Warning, if you use a viral licence like GPL some (different) people will hate you.
rbanffy
OTOH, if you would resent someone repackaging your work and selling it for a profit, use a GPL variant.
chrismcb
How does using a GPL variant prevent someone from repackaging your work and selling it for a profit?
stuaxo
Definitely worth doing, make sure it is compilable and include a readme + put it on github.

Of course nothing may happen (See autodesk animator and Executor) - both of these were open sourced over 10 years after they were popular though.

Freeboots
For sure, lets see it on github
stuff4ben
What an interesting way to gauge interest in an MVP. No doubt the OP is seeing how many hits he's getting on his link. The community is starting to froth a bit at the mouth judging by the comments too. Well-played sir!
liviu
I would like to see this project open-source and put my contribution on it.
IgorPartola
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.)
jamesbritt
How hard is it to build the executable?

If there's any effort involved in turning the source code into a runnable app I suggest:

- Open-sourcing it, perhaps using the GPL.

- Selling pre-compiled binaries via gumroad

alex3t
Open source it. I'v open sourced my bulk email sender for Mac https://github.com/alex3t/Bulky about year ago and after that I got more purchases, but unfortunatelly only one fork from customer who want to customize the app
crystalmace
I would open source it, if only because it is something that I personally would use and want to improve on. As it sits right now abandoned, it isn't doing any good for anyone, and in my opinion constitues wasted time if not used. My personal philosophy is to open source a project if I abandon it so that the effort that went into it is usefule to someone, if not me. Just my two cents on the issue.