3 ms·

> I guess people don't want to upstream patches for some reason. My insanely biased impression based on my experience is that this is just the norm for Windows

> I guess people don't want to upstream patches for some reason. My insanely biased impression based on my experience is that this is just the norm for Windows-centric development. Generally you have no expectation of being given access to source code at all; if software is free then it's "freeware", but for whatever reason the developers don't generally want you modifying it. So many power user tools just died out when their developers quit working on them because the source code was not available, at least not under a free license. I remember back in the early days of Minecraft (beta+ era) I'd just go on the forum and download random jar files uploaded by whomever, and mod Minecraft with them. Nobody asked for source code. Or thinking about doom9, for years and years the norm for tool development was that you'd download a random exe from someone on a forum, with a single thread for "support". If they disappeared one day, that was it. That's also the way a bunch of Android stuff is/was developed on xda-dev. The more Linux-centric set of norms has expanded outward into a pretty robust open source ecosystem, but it's by no means the universal norm for free (as in beer) software development. Even in cases like Paper / Bukkit where the source is free, building the software yourself is very much not the norm, often is not even supported.

Cyphase 4y ago
I've gotten the same impression. So many Windows tools are given away for free, no hint of ever monetizing or anything, just a hobby / service by the developer, and yet no code is provided. I remember hearing an explanation from one such solo developer with a relatively recognizable brand that he doesn't want people to be able to easily replicate his tools with added malware / adware. But I feel like download sites have been doing that for years anyway. He has released at least one tiny but useful piece of code as public domain. Also he does have one product that charges for. I suppose one potential reason to keep code private is to maintain more control of the free tools for purposes of branding and bringing attention to the pay tool? That's just a thought.

Cyphase 4y ago

I've gotten the same impression. So many Windows tools are given away for free, no hint of ever monetizing or anything, just a hobby / service by the developer, and yet no code is provided. I remember hearing an explanation from one such solo developer with a relatively recognizable brand that he doesn't want people to be able to easily replicate his tools with added malware / adware. But I feel like download sites have been doing that for years anyway. He has released at least one tiny but useful piece of code as public domain. Also he does have one product that charges for. I suppose one potential reason to keep code private is to maintain more control of the free tools for purposes of branding and bringing attention to the pay tool? That's just a thought.