7 ms·

If they'd open source it, users would be able to compile for their own devices just fine. There are fully open alternatives that Apple doesn't mind, like https:

by internet2000 11y ago

If they'd open source it, users would be able to compile for their own devices just fine. There are fully open alternatives that Apple doesn't mind, like https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight I know where they're coming from, but all this wolf crying is getting annoying. I wouldn't mind if they came clear and said "we can't open source f.lux because we want to pressure Apple into letting us monetize it someday."

striking 11y ago
From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); (c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or (d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise. They also write at the bottom of their homepage that "f.lux is patent pending." Next to an offer of collaboration with cell phone, display, and lighting system manufacturers. Which is code for "We want money for this." Why do people support this software? Especially on HN, which should know better. This is the kind of software that wants to be free, and could be made better through open source. If you think this is ridiculous (as I do), Redshift[1] is a free, open-source alternative for at least Linux. On Android, ChainFire's CF.lumen[2] at least does not make a patent claim on filtering your display, and allows you to use "Pro Mode" without paying (you simply have to enable "Freeloading" from the main menu). 1: http://jonls.dk/redshift/ http://jonls.dk/redshift/ 2: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.lumen https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.l...
- monochromatic 11y ago
  How is this different from a standard closed-source EULA?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- joosters 11y ago
  What's wrong with that? It's commercial software, and they are nice enough to let you use a copy for free. They aren't (AFAIK) doing anything remotely malicious, like grabbing user data or bundling malware. It doesn't add advertising to your computer. (I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count as unacceptable)
  - lispit 11y ago
    It's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the idea of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain, which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production.
    - elipsey 11y ago
      Yep. They care so much about public helath that no one is allowed to be healthier with paying them. Classy move.
      - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
        Can't you level that complaint at all pharma firms though too? At least if it doesn't encourage those behind f.lux to continue beneficial activities (promoting the benefit of redshifted screen use) then it should encourage others to develop health focussed apps in the hope of getting paid? FWIW I use redshift.
        elipsey 11y ago
elipsey 11y ago
Exactly. There's a linux version too, but I won't use this because it's closed, not because it isn't free as in beer. I don't like breaking my OS with crappy vendor packages that only work on half the versions of half the distros. Also, the monetization strategy suggests an ulterior motive that makes it hard for me to accept the idea that this is important for my health, or public health, at face value.
- makepanic 11y ago
  http://jonls.dk/redshift/ http://jonls.dk/redshift/ is a good open source alternative to f.lux
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ucha 11y ago
How does making it open source helps 95% of the iPhone owners out there? Outside of this tech ivory tower, most people don't even understand what a compiler does.
- izacus 11y ago
  Not every piece of software has to be usable to the 100% of world's population.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Not a single piece of software is usable to 100% of the population. Next to all web-based software is even only usable by 4.28% of the global population: the US population. You need for many things an US credit card, or a .edu email, etc.
- pnt12 11y ago
  I don't have an opinion on this particular case, but FOSS benefits people even when they don't code. I mean, who has read a significant portion of the Linux kernel? Close to no one. How many have beneffited from it being GPL? Millions, who get access to a kernel that is developed by a great deal of companies with interest in it. That wouldnt happen if it was freeware only, with no rights to modify or share. Should f.lux go FOSS? That's up to them and their business model. Is their patent crappy? Perhaps so. Although Ill say, if it is so simple to do what they do, why dont we have a bunch of similar apps, legal or not?
SyneRyder 11y ago
> If they'd open source it, users would be able to compile for their own devices just fine. "Just download this repo & compile for your own device" really isn't a solution for most people. There's a lot of people who would love to use f.lux on their devices, but wouldn't have a clue how to compile something with Xcode. Even offering the binary to sideload is a poor solution - what about people who don't own a Mac to connect their phones to? For the maximum number of people to benefit from this, whether it's f.lux or GoodNight or another solution, it needs to be built into the OS (like Samsung has with Reading Mode) or on the App Store behind a big easy button that says "Get". That's what f.lux is campaigning for.
carlosrg 11y ago
The developers should open their code while the OS maker keeps its system tightly closed and restrictive. Very coherent argument.
austenallred 11y ago
The purpose of the app goes against Apple's interest. I'm OK with no apps being on the App Store that will affect the appearance of other apps. The app is, in a way, a partial rewrite of the operating system. Of course Apple doesn't want apps that alter the OS in the store.

striking 11y ago

From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); (c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or (d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise. They also write at the bottom of their homepage that "f.lux is patent pending." Next to an offer of collaboration with cell phone, display, and lighting system manufacturers. Which is code for "We want money for this." Why do people support this software? Especially on HN, which should know better. This is the kind of software that wants to be free, and could be made better through open source. If you think this is ridiculous (as I do), Redshift[1] is a free, open-source alternative for at least Linux. On Android, ChainFire's CF.lumen[2] at least does not make a patent claim on filtering your display, and allows you to use "Pro Mode" without paying (you simply have to enable "Freeloading" from the main menu). 1: http://jonls.dk/redshift/ http://jonls.dk/redshift/ 2: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.lumen https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.l...

monochromatic 11y ago
How is this different from a standard closed-source EULA?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joosters 11y ago
What's wrong with that? It's commercial software, and they are nice enough to let you use a copy for free. They aren't (AFAIK) doing anything remotely malicious, like grabbing user data or bundling malware. It doesn't add advertising to your computer. (I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count as unacceptable)
- lispit 11y ago
  It's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the idea of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain, which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production.
  - elipsey 11y ago
    Yep. They care so much about public helath that no one is allowed to be healthier with paying them. Classy move.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      Can't you level that complaint at all pharma firms though too? At least if it doesn't encourage those behind f.lux to continue beneficial activities (promoting the benefit of redshifted screen use) then it should encourage others to develop health focussed apps in the hope of getting paid? FWIW I use redshift.
      - elipsey 11y ago

elipsey 11y ago

Exactly. There's a linux version too, but I won't use this because it's closed, not because it isn't free as in beer. I don't like breaking my OS with crappy vendor packages that only work on half the versions of half the distros. Also, the monetization strategy suggests an ulterior motive that makes it hard for me to accept the idea that this is important for my health, or public health, at face value.

makepanic 11y ago
http://jonls.dk/redshift/ http://jonls.dk/redshift/ is a good open source alternative to f.lux

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ucha 11y ago

How does making it open source helps 95% of the iPhone owners out there? Outside of this tech ivory tower, most people don't even understand what a compiler does.

izacus 11y ago
Not every piece of software has to be usable to the 100% of world's population.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Not a single piece of software is usable to 100% of the population. Next to all web-based software is even only usable by 4.28% of the global population: the US population. You need for many things an US credit card, or a .edu email, etc.
pnt12 11y ago
I don't have an opinion on this particular case, but FOSS benefits people even when they don't code. I mean, who has read a significant portion of the Linux kernel? Close to no one. How many have beneffited from it being GPL? Millions, who get access to a kernel that is developed by a great deal of companies with interest in it. That wouldnt happen if it was freeware only, with no rights to modify or share. Should f.lux go FOSS? That's up to them and their business model. Is their patent crappy? Perhaps so. Although Ill say, if it is so simple to do what they do, why dont we have a bunch of similar apps, legal or not?

SyneRyder 11y ago

> If they'd open source it, users would be able to compile for their own devices just fine. "Just download this repo & compile for your own device" really isn't a solution for most people. There's a lot of people who would love to use f.lux on their devices, but wouldn't have a clue how to compile something with Xcode. Even offering the binary to sideload is a poor solution - what about people who don't own a Mac to connect their phones to? For the maximum number of people to benefit from this, whether it's f.lux or GoodNight or another solution, it needs to be built into the OS (like Samsung has with Reading Mode) or on the App Store behind a big easy button that says "Get". That's what f.lux is campaigning for.

carlosrg 11y ago

The developers should open their code while the OS maker keeps its system tightly closed and restrictive. Very coherent argument.

austenallred 11y ago

The purpose of the app goes against Apple's interest. I'm OK with no apps being on the App Store that will affect the appearance of other apps. The app is, in a way, a partial rewrite of the operating system. Of course Apple doesn't want apps that alter the OS in the store.