5 ms·

Thank you for the snark, but what you probably don’t know is that MonitorControl for M1 wouldn’t have been possible if I hadn’t open sourced Lunar’s code and my

by alin23 4y ago

Thank you for the snark, but what you probably don’t know is that MonitorControl for M1 wouldn’t have been possible if I hadn’t open sourced Lunar’s code and my reasearch on that. All the work on MC after Apple Silicon is done by a previous Lunar user (@waydabber) which I helped for months on Discord until he got the implementation right, and then eventually got to do his own paid implementation called BetterDisplay. Lunar is my full time job, I can’t have it fully open source and still earn money from it. I would still be working at some corp on gluing web APIs if I hadn’t done this.

forty 4y ago
I think it's perfectly fine to do non open source work as long as one does not pretend to be open source. I had a quick look to your website at in all fairness, it's pretty clear that the product is proprietary and paid (at least it doesn't claim "the de facto open source app to ..."). In your comparison table I would suggest to put at least a yellow tick (rather than the green one currently) in the open source line though, because that is slightly misleading.
- alin23 4y ago
  Does Open Source require the source to be compilable? The free parts of the app are fully open source with an MIT license, you’re free to modify it and add mocks for the paid parts. It’s gonna be hard, but infinitely easier than having to rewrite such an app from scratch. For me, the source code is there and open, call it whatever you want, they’re just vague terms anyway. I’m gonna keep calling it open source.
  - computerfriend 4y ago
    > Does Open Source require the source to be compilable? No, but, the actual code clearly is compilable (because you've compiled it). So this is only part of the code. So it's partially open source. So it shouldn't have a green tick and you shouldn't call it "open source".
    - alin23 4y ago
      Well yes, the full Lunar Pro app is compilable. I'm only open sourcing Lunar Free which is not compilable without some mocks, not even on my own machine. But whatever, since all I've had is attacks and flat out stealing from the "open source community", I'll only release closed source binaries from now on so that I'm staying away as much as possible from this drama. I'm not gaining anything from calling it "open source", it's just what regular people understand easier than "source available" or "semi-closed source" or however OSS people would like to call it just for the sake of pertaining to an arbitrary Open Source Definition like it's the law. Lunar started as open source until v4 and Lunar v3 is still in the lunar3 branch, as compilable and usable and open as it ever was. I wanted to contribute my knowledge just how I got help from reading and using part of the ddcctl source code. And people did profit from that: all current M1 DDC solutions (MonitorControl, DisplayBuddy, m1ddc and BetterDisplay) are based on my code from the DDC.c and DDC.swift files. I've created competitors for the only business that's keeping me afloat financially, so I'm definitely not liking when people attack even this gesture. I'm probably sounding like an old man shouting at the sky, these words are not a direct reply to your comment anymore so hopefully you won't take it personally.
      - forty 4y ago
        Don't worry, I was just providing suggestions to be helpful, not demanding or expecting anything (I don't use Apple products, so I won't be one of your customers no matter whether it's OSS or not) and I'm not taking things personally. Each people have their own reasons to want open source software. Some people like it for knowledge sharing as you mentioned, but other use cases include make it easier to package in Linux distributions (I don't know the Macos equivalent, maybe that one doesn't make sense), or making it possible to customize the software for my own need (and sharing it with the community in case it's helpful for someone else). For those use cases, it's very useful to have enough code to build the software. Maybe you should suggest whoever would be interested to have this to contribute the missing pieces / mock. Anyway, I wish you luck with your business, personally it makes me happy to see people build software independently, OSS or not :)
  - forty 4y ago
    The part that is open source is open source, but the part that is proprietary is not open source. Which is why I think a yellow tick at least would be fairer, because it's only partially open source.
beltsazar 4y ago
> MonitorControl for M1 wouldn’t have been possible if I hadn’t open sourced Lunar’s code and my reasearch on that. Thank you for your open source contributions. > I can’t have it fully open source and still earn money from it. I understand. No one asked you to make it 100% open source, but it would be great if the open source parts of the app are decoupled and can be independently built. Actually, I knew several partially open source apps, similar to Lunar. For example, Rectangle [1] has both an open source version and a pro (paid) version. However, unlike Lunar, the open source code of Rectangle is buildable. In fact, Lunar might be the first partially open source app I know that is not buildable. [1]: https://github.com/rxhanson/Rectangle https://github.com/rxhanson/Rectangle

by alin23 4y ago

forty 4y ago

I think it's perfectly fine to do non open source work as long as one does not pretend to be open source. I had a quick look to your website at in all fairness, it's pretty clear that the product is proprietary and paid (at least it doesn't claim "the de facto open source app to ..."). In your comparison table I would suggest to put at least a yellow tick (rather than the green one currently) in the open source line though, because that is slightly misleading.

alin23 4y ago
Does Open Source require the source to be compilable? The free parts of the app are fully open source with an MIT license, you’re free to modify it and add mocks for the paid parts. It’s gonna be hard, but infinitely easier than having to rewrite such an app from scratch. For me, the source code is there and open, call it whatever you want, they’re just vague terms anyway. I’m gonna keep calling it open source.
- computerfriend 4y ago
  > Does Open Source require the source to be compilable? No, but, the actual code clearly is compilable (because you've compiled it). So this is only part of the code. So it's partially open source. So it shouldn't have a green tick and you shouldn't call it "open source".
  - alin23 4y ago
    Well yes, the full Lunar Pro app is compilable. I'm only open sourcing Lunar Free which is not compilable without some mocks, not even on my own machine. But whatever, since all I've had is attacks and flat out stealing from the "open source community", I'll only release closed source binaries from now on so that I'm staying away as much as possible from this drama. I'm not gaining anything from calling it "open source", it's just what regular people understand easier than "source available" or "semi-closed source" or however OSS people would like to call it just for the sake of pertaining to an arbitrary Open Source Definition like it's the law. Lunar started as open source until v4 and Lunar v3 is still in the lunar3 branch, as compilable and usable and open as it ever was. I wanted to contribute my knowledge just how I got help from reading and using part of the ddcctl source code. And people did profit from that: all current M1 DDC solutions (MonitorControl, DisplayBuddy, m1ddc and BetterDisplay) are based on my code from the DDC.c and DDC.swift files. I've created competitors for the only business that's keeping me afloat financially, so I'm definitely not liking when people attack even this gesture. I'm probably sounding like an old man shouting at the sky, these words are not a direct reply to your comment anymore so hopefully you won't take it personally.
    - forty 4y ago
      Don't worry, I was just providing suggestions to be helpful, not demanding or expecting anything (I don't use Apple products, so I won't be one of your customers no matter whether it's OSS or not) and I'm not taking things personally. Each people have their own reasons to want open source software. Some people like it for knowledge sharing as you mentioned, but other use cases include make it easier to package in Linux distributions (I don't know the Macos equivalent, maybe that one doesn't make sense), or making it possible to customize the software for my own need (and sharing it with the community in case it's helpful for someone else). For those use cases, it's very useful to have enough code to build the software. Maybe you should suggest whoever would be interested to have this to contribute the missing pieces / mock. Anyway, I wish you luck with your business, personally it makes me happy to see people build software independently, OSS or not :)
- forty 4y ago
  The part that is open source is open source, but the part that is proprietary is not open source. Which is why I think a yellow tick at least would be fairer, because it's only partially open source.

beltsazar 4y ago

> MonitorControl for M1 wouldn’t have been possible if I hadn’t open sourced Lunar’s code and my reasearch on that. Thank you for your open source contributions. > I can’t have it fully open source and still earn money from it. I understand. No one asked you to make it 100% open source, but it would be great if the open source parts of the app are decoupled and can be independently built. Actually, I knew several partially open source apps, similar to Lunar. For example, Rectangle [1] has both an open source version and a pro (paid) version. However, unlike Lunar, the open source code of Rectangle is buildable. In fact, Lunar might be the first partially open source app I know that is not buildable. [1]: https://github.com/rxhanson/Rectangle https://github.com/rxhanson/Rectangle