8 ms·

Glad someone is doing this. The author pulled a bait and switch and got away with it because the software wasn't really a community project to begin with. The

Glad someone is doing this. The author pulled a bait and switch and got away with it because the software wasn't really a community project to begin with. The switch happened right after I spent a good amount of time getting Aseprite's finicky build system to work so I could package it for a distro. If I had known the author was going to betray the users I wouldn't have bothered. After that I learned about Grafx2, which is free and pretty featureful: https://pulkomandy.tk/projects/GrafX2 https://pulkomandy.tk/projects/GrafX2

eropple 8y ago
Most open-source projects aren't "community projects" and "betray the users" is an interesting way to phrase "tried to get people to support the project, they by and large refused, and so he made it distinctly less optional". You're better than that, man. This stuff goes both ways.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  People have contributed to the project under the original license terms. It's absolutely a betrayal to the contributors (and possibly illegal, requiring consent) to change the license terms from under their feet.
  - simosx 8y ago
    Did the community contributors assigned the copyright of their work to the original maintainer?
    - app4soft 8y ago
      Yes, original Aseprite contributors sign CLA.
- TeddyDD 8y ago
  Well, I bought Aseprite while it was FOSS, and license was one of the reasons I chosen it instead of PyxelEdit. I wound't say I feel betrayed... more like disappointed.
  - eropple 8y ago
    Don't get me wrong--I bought it, too. But I'm not disappointed in the author. I am disappointed in the userbase that wouldn't put up to make it viable. Like I said, this stuff is a two-way street. (This is also why I, for a project I'm about to release, am doing an OSS/commercial split with higher-end features not part of the OSS version. But my software is designed for enterprise use, and they're used to paying for things.)
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I absolutely cannot categorize a developer asking to be paid for their work as "betrayal".
- davexunit 8y ago
  Being paid for work and turning free software into proprietary software are very different.
  - kingbirdy 8y ago
    If he's the one who was putting the work in to the software, he has a right to ask to be paid for it, even if he previously was nice enough to give it away
  - fenomas 8y ago
    Nobody "turned free software into proprietary software". He released some free software, then later he released other non-free software. He also explained his reasoning[0] - that developing the project as FOSS wasn't working out, for specific reasons he goes into, so he needed to try something else. Honestly, this kind of thing is the ugly side of FOSS culture. I get why you were hoping he'd continue under the old license, but the fact that he didn't is no grounds to say he betrayed people. [0] http://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ http://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/
    - paavoova 8y ago
      Some of the author's reasoning amounts to arbitrary justifications. They have a section describing the difficulties of integrating contributors patches, suggesting they're unwelcome, which is quite the high-horse stance to take when people are going out of their way to contribute code to your project. The rant against Linux packaging betrays the author's position, in that they would prefer to spam the user with donation/payment links in the most obnoxious way possible. For example, they claim "[Distributions] do not show who is the real developer of the application in a clear way" and "They do not show buttons/links/a simple way to contribute to the real developer of the program", but in reality all properly documented programs handle this themselves in one or more of their --version/--help output, the manual, and the interface. This is especially true for GUI applications, which typically have an "About", etc menu giving details. If the author neglected to document their program properly, it's no fault of the packagers. I have never had problems finding the upstream source and authors from properly documented packages. The article also brings up improper association of a package with a given disto. This is partiality true (e.g. users reporting bugs upstream for outdated packages when they should be contacting the packagers), but largely such end-user ignorance has nothing to do with Linux distributions, and is applicable to all OSs.
app4soft 8y ago
> After that I learned about Grafx2 Yeah, I also use GrafX2 – it's much smaller, much faster, and support more platforms than Aseprite! ;-) Few weeks ago we discussed GrafX2 on HN[0] and on Reddit[1,2] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17213761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17213761 [1] https://reddit.com/r/linux/comments/8hih45/sh_grafx2_25_released_pixel_art_editor_call_for/ https://reddit.com/r/linux/comments/8hih45/sh_grafx2_25_rele... [2] https://reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/8hifts/sh_grafx2_25_released_pixel_art_editor_call_for/ https://reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/8hifts/sh_grafx2_25...
boomlinde 8y ago
Grafx2 is also very much like Deluxe Paint if that's your thing. Moving from Deluxe Paint IV to Grafx2 was pretty seamless for me for that reason. I'll note that it's probably best to run an old release (the 2.3 version that ships with Debian is OK) or build from master at this point, because there were some bugs in the 2.5 release that I couldn't get over. The project maintainer is very active and quickly accepted my patches, though. The software is also pretty interesting from a developer's perspective. It has basically grown organically for 20 years, originally starting out as a freeware closed source Deluxe Paint clone for DOS. The source code reflects this, and there is some low hanging fruit ripe for improvement.
jancsika 8y ago
> If I had known the author was going to betray the users I wouldn't have bothered. I'm a FLOSS developer. I understand FLOSS development, ethics, and licenses. And I don't understand why you're casually referring to a change to a proprietary license-- a change I agree is for the worse-- as a betrayal of users. What purpose is this supposed to serve?

eropple 8y ago

Most open-source projects aren't "community projects" and "betray the users" is an interesting way to phrase "tried to get people to support the project, they by and large refused, and so he made it distinctly less optional". You're better than that, man. This stuff goes both ways.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TAForObvReasons 8y ago
People have contributed to the project under the original license terms. It's absolutely a betrayal to the contributors (and possibly illegal, requiring consent) to change the license terms from under their feet.
- simosx 8y ago
  Did the community contributors assigned the copyright of their work to the original maintainer?
  - app4soft 8y ago
    Yes, original Aseprite contributors sign CLA.
TeddyDD 8y ago
Well, I bought Aseprite while it was FOSS, and license was one of the reasons I chosen it instead of PyxelEdit. I wound't say I feel betrayed... more like disappointed.
- eropple 8y ago
  Don't get me wrong--I bought it, too. But I'm not disappointed in the author. I am disappointed in the userbase that wouldn't put up to make it viable. Like I said, this stuff is a two-way street. (This is also why I, for a project I'm about to release, am doing an OSS/commercial split with higher-end features not part of the OSS version. But my software is designed for enterprise use, and they're used to paying for things.)

s73v3r_ 8y ago

I absolutely cannot categorize a developer asking to be paid for their work as "betrayal".

davexunit 8y ago
Being paid for work and turning free software into proprietary software are very different.
- kingbirdy 8y ago
  If he's the one who was putting the work in to the software, he has a right to ask to be paid for it, even if he previously was nice enough to give it away
- fenomas 8y ago
  Nobody "turned free software into proprietary software". He released some free software, then later he released other non-free software. He also explained his reasoning[0] - that developing the project as FOSS wasn't working out, for specific reasons he goes into, so he needed to try something else. Honestly, this kind of thing is the ugly side of FOSS culture. I get why you were hoping he'd continue under the old license, but the fact that he didn't is no grounds to say he betrayed people. [0] http://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ http://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/
  - paavoova 8y ago
    Some of the author's reasoning amounts to arbitrary justifications. They have a section describing the difficulties of integrating contributors patches, suggesting they're unwelcome, which is quite the high-horse stance to take when people are going out of their way to contribute code to your project. The rant against Linux packaging betrays the author's position, in that they would prefer to spam the user with donation/payment links in the most obnoxious way possible. For example, they claim "[Distributions] do not show who is the real developer of the application in a clear way" and "They do not show buttons/links/a simple way to contribute to the real developer of the program", but in reality all properly documented programs handle this themselves in one or more of their --version/--help output, the manual, and the interface. This is especially true for GUI applications, which typically have an "About", etc menu giving details. If the author neglected to document their program properly, it's no fault of the packagers. I have never had problems finding the upstream source and authors from properly documented packages. The article also brings up improper association of a package with a given disto. This is partiality true (e.g. users reporting bugs upstream for outdated packages when they should be contacting the packagers), but largely such end-user ignorance has nothing to do with Linux distributions, and is applicable to all OSs.

app4soft 8y ago

> After that I learned about Grafx2 Yeah, I also use GrafX2 – it's much smaller, much faster, and support more platforms than Aseprite! ;-) Few weeks ago we discussed GrafX2 on HN[0] and on Reddit[1,2] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17213761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17213761 [1] https://reddit.com/r/linux/comments/8hih45/sh_grafx2_25_released_pixel_art_editor_call_for/ https://reddit.com/r/linux/comments/8hih45/sh_grafx2_25_rele... [2] https://reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/8hifts/sh_grafx2_25_released_pixel_art_editor_call_for/ https://reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/8hifts/sh_grafx2_25...

boomlinde 8y ago

Grafx2 is also very much like Deluxe Paint if that's your thing. Moving from Deluxe Paint IV to Grafx2 was pretty seamless for me for that reason. I'll note that it's probably best to run an old release (the 2.3 version that ships with Debian is OK) or build from master at this point, because there were some bugs in the 2.5 release that I couldn't get over. The project maintainer is very active and quickly accepted my patches, though. The software is also pretty interesting from a developer's perspective. It has basically grown organically for 20 years, originally starting out as a freeware closed source Deluxe Paint clone for DOS. The source code reflects this, and there is some low hanging fruit ripe for improvement.

jancsika 8y ago

> If I had known the author was going to betray the users I wouldn't have bothered. I'm a FLOSS developer. I understand FLOSS development, ethics, and licenses. And I don't understand why you're casually referring to a change to a proprietary license-- a change I agree is for the worse-- as a betrayal of users. What purpose is this supposed to serve?