3 ms·

And thanks to being proprietary, no one else can devote time to it, either.

by andai 3y ago

jorts 3y ago
It’s perfectly fine that it’s proprietary. Just because it exists doesn’t mean other people are entitled to the source code.
- andai 3y ago
  I agree. Nobody owes anyone anything! I was merely pointing out that it's a shame that (1) it has apparently been abandoned for years, (2) people are not able to do anything about that. (Bus factor == 1, etc.) Based on the other comments in the thread, I'm sure there are people who would love to contribute. (Worth pointing out that making something open source isn't zero-maintenance by any means, especially since GitHub still doesn't let you disable pull requests...)
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  There's a cost to open-sourcing code. It takes effort. You must write documentation and clean up your code in many ways. It's good to "clean up code" of course but is that the most urgent thing on your task-list? Who should pay for that effort? The original author? Yes if they think it's worth it and they can afford to spend the time on it. There's also a risk whenever you publish source-code, someone might sue you for copyright infringement, or patent violation, etc.
milen 3y ago
I’ve toyed with the idea of open sourcing the product. I reached the conclusion that it’s not the approach for two main reasons: - I believe in a strong, centralised product vision and execution - The code will be packaged up and sold by unscrupulous people who will not contribute back I’m a strong advocate of interoperability and open data formats. The Monodraw data format is not proprietary and I do have plans for a plain text format (currently, it’s just zipped JSON which doesn’t play nice with VCS). Interoperability is key to competition and avoiding lock-in, so I’ll push in that direction as my time permits.
- techn00 3y ago
  > The code will be packaged up and sold by unscrupulous people who will not contribute back Choose a good license then
  - milen 3y ago
    A license wouldn't stop the unscrupulous people, they'll keep making clones of it and ignoring the license. This means I have to start chasing any clones, engage legally and try to take them down. It's just not worth the time - I would rather spend the time on improving Monodraw instead.
    - synthmeat 3y ago
      To voice support for current state - do what you're already doing, and I agree on focusing on opening up the format. Don't hesitate to charge for v2, if improvements pile up and you have affordances to do so. Will gladly pay. It's pretty great already as-is. Thank you.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      If unscrupulous people are willing to ignore the license anyway, wouldn't they just hex edit to change the branding to sell clones even while it's closed source?
- lumb63 3y ago
  I understand your concerns about open-sourcing the codebase and won’t try to convince you otherwise. It’s your code. That said, I would like to share my perspective on the subject, having given some thought to if/how I should open source my code. I don’t feel that I have any ground to stand on if I were to choose not to open source my code. That same code would be uploaded to the internet using a web browser or other tool that is open source. That code is probably compiled or interpreted by a tool that’s open source. For me, it all runs on an operating system that’s open source. Nearly everything that I am able to do as a software developer is built on the shoulders of giants who, out of kindness and conviction in their beliefs, chose to make an entire ecosystem of software available to the world, with source code available, free of charge. I feel that I owe it to the world to pay that legacy forward.

And thanks to being proprietary, no one else can devote time to it, either.

by andai 3y ago

And thanks to being proprietary, no one else can devote time to it, either.

It’s perfectly fine that it’s proprietary. Just because it exists doesn’t mean other people are entitled to the source code.

andai 3y ago
I agree. Nobody owes anyone anything! I was merely pointing out that it's a shame that (1) it has apparently been abandoned for years, (2) people are not able to do anything about that. (Bus factor == 1, etc.) Based on the other comments in the thread, I'm sure there are people who would love to contribute. (Worth pointing out that making something open source isn't zero-maintenance by any means, especially since GitHub still doesn't let you disable pull requests...)
galaxyLogic 3y ago
There's a cost to open-sourcing code. It takes effort. You must write documentation and clean up your code in many ways. It's good to "clean up code" of course but is that the most urgent thing on your task-list? Who should pay for that effort? The original author? Yes if they think it's worth it and they can afford to spend the time on it. There's also a risk whenever you publish source-code, someone might sue you for copyright infringement, or patent violation, etc.

milen 3y ago

I’ve toyed with the idea of open sourcing the product. I reached the conclusion that it’s not the approach for two main reasons: - I believe in a strong, centralised product vision and execution - The code will be packaged up and sold by unscrupulous people who will not contribute back I’m a strong advocate of interoperability and open data formats. The Monodraw data format is not proprietary and I do have plans for a plain text format (currently, it’s just zipped JSON which doesn’t play nice with VCS). Interoperability is key to competition and avoiding lock-in, so I’ll push in that direction as my time permits.

techn00 3y ago
> The code will be packaged up and sold by unscrupulous people who will not contribute back Choose a good license then
- milen 3y ago
  A license wouldn't stop the unscrupulous people, they'll keep making clones of it and ignoring the license. This means I have to start chasing any clones, engage legally and try to take them down. It's just not worth the time - I would rather spend the time on improving Monodraw instead.
  - synthmeat 3y ago
    To voice support for current state - do what you're already doing, and I agree on focusing on opening up the format. Don't hesitate to charge for v2, if improvements pile up and you have affordances to do so. Will gladly pay. It's pretty great already as-is. Thank you.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    If unscrupulous people are willing to ignore the license anyway, wouldn't they just hex edit to change the branding to sell clones even while it's closed source?
lumb63 3y ago
I understand your concerns about open-sourcing the codebase and won’t try to convince you otherwise. It’s your code. That said, I would like to share my perspective on the subject, having given some thought to if/how I should open source my code. I don’t feel that I have any ground to stand on if I were to choose not to open source my code. That same code would be uploaded to the internet using a web browser or other tool that is open source. That code is probably compiled or interpreted by a tool that’s open source. For me, it all runs on an operating system that’s open source. Nearly everything that I am able to do as a software developer is built on the shoulders of giants who, out of kindness and conviction in their beliefs, chose to make an entire ecosystem of software available to the world, with source code available, free of charge. I feel that I owe it to the world to pay that legacy forward.