3 ms·

Sure, but then I can't prevent forks or folks distributing custom builds unless I start doing DRM notices and litigation. It's infinitely easier to keep it clo

Sure, but then I can't prevent forks or folks distributing custom builds unless I start doing DRM notices and litigation. It's infinitely easier to keep it closed source.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Legally you can, and practically do you really think people can't reverse engineer your stuff if they want? Alternatively: it sounded like you just didn't want to support it or deal with pull requests; do you care about unofficial unsupported builds? Edit: And yes, just distributing binaries and not worrying is the least work; I just wanted to point out that you can have it both ways if you ignore "Open Source".
- candiddevmike 5y ago
  Yes, I'm trying to build a brand and monetize the app via a SaaS offering for those who don't want to self host and "cloud features" for those who do.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    Okay, so it's not "I didn't see a benefit to having it OSS aside from appeasing some OSS purists. The app is already free, and I don't need the added burden of responding to issues and pull requests (and supporting the code they add)." It's "I don't want to open source it at all". Which is fine, just say that instead of bringing up support burden.
- KronisLV 5y ago
  > Legally you can... Sure, up until the point where you run into people in countries like China ripping off your products and get stonewalled in any attempts at IP enforcement. Alternatively, are you sure that you can really afford the legal expenses of pursuing such enforcement? I've seen enough stories of indie game developers having their games be stolen an re-uploaded under a different name to know that this is a problem that shouldn't be overlooked, though obviously it's worse in some industries than others. > ...and practically do you really think people can't reverse engineer your stuff if they want? No, most people cannot, and that's the extent to which it remains a good point. You don't lock your door because you're worried about the one person who knows how to pick it out of a thousand, you lock your door to deter the rest 999 people who would go through it if it were not locked. People talk a lot about obscurity not being security and so on, but to a certain degree it is, just like how changing your SSH port will prevent a number of automated attacks, even if port scanning is trivial otherwise.

Sure, but then I can't prevent forks or folks distributing custom builds unless I start doing DRM notices and litigation. It's infinitely easier to keep it closed source.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

Legally you can, and practically do you really think people can't reverse engineer your stuff if they want? Alternatively: it sounded like you just didn't want to support it or deal with pull requests; do you care about unofficial unsupported builds? Edit: And yes, just distributing binaries and not worrying is the least work; I just wanted to point out that you can have it both ways if you ignore "Open Source".

candiddevmike 5y ago
Yes, I'm trying to build a brand and monetize the app via a SaaS offering for those who don't want to self host and "cloud features" for those who do.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Okay, so it's not "I didn't see a benefit to having it OSS aside from appeasing some OSS purists. The app is already free, and I don't need the added burden of responding to issues and pull requests (and supporting the code they add)." It's "I don't want to open source it at all". Which is fine, just say that instead of bringing up support burden.
KronisLV 5y ago
> Legally you can... Sure, up until the point where you run into people in countries like China ripping off your products and get stonewalled in any attempts at IP enforcement. Alternatively, are you sure that you can really afford the legal expenses of pursuing such enforcement? I've seen enough stories of indie game developers having their games be stolen an re-uploaded under a different name to know that this is a problem that shouldn't be overlooked, though obviously it's worse in some industries than others. > ...and practically do you really think people can't reverse engineer your stuff if they want? No, most people cannot, and that's the extent to which it remains a good point. You don't lock your door because you're worried about the one person who knows how to pick it out of a thousand, you lock your door to deter the rest 999 people who would go through it if it were not locked. People talk a lot about obscurity not being security and so on, but to a certain degree it is, just like how changing your SSH port will prevent a number of automated attacks, even if port scanning is trivial otherwise.