4 ms·

It looks rather good! But I do wonder if I'm the only person who was more than a little put out once I found it was the "hostage" model of open source - i.e. pa

It looks rather good! But I do wonder if I'm the only person who was more than a little put out once I found it was the "hostage" model of open source - i.e. pay us enough money and we'll release this. Of course, there's nothing to say you can't do this, and I do applaud people finding ways to make OSS pay. But this way leaves a funny taste - it feels somehow counter to the spirit of the thing. Possibly my ire was raised a bit further by the fact that I found that out in what seemed a slightly bait and switch-y way - "Try this!" click "Maybe later if you pay us!" Hmmmm. Those gripes aside, it looks pretty.

api 13y ago
Stuff takes time to make, and time costs money unless you are independently wealthy or have a trust fund. This looks gorgeous, but many of these features are non-trivial to implement.
- taude 13y ago
  Or have an enterprise that allows workers to devote some part of their daily duty to support/build it...
- mrgoldenbrown 13y ago
  It's fine to ask for money, but they could solicit money without declaring themselves open source yet, with a promise to do so in the future, or they could actually release the source now, and continue to solicit money. Instead they are claiming to already be open source but not actually opening anything. I think that's what got people a little put off.
l33tbro 13y ago
Agreed. Seems a bit disingenuous to espouse the virtues of 'open source community' and putting yourself at the other end of the spectrum with 'evil' Facebook, then actually engaging in hat passing. Not dissing your efforts or your product (looks cool), but leave the colorful, evocative terms like 'open source' to the side next time and be honest about your marketing exercise intentions.
- nobodysfool 13y ago
  Yea, it looks okay, it's pretty much bootstrap with a black and white theme. The 'markdown live preview' seems neat, but it's nothing that hasn't been done before. The dashboard looks neat, but it's obviously not finished yet, and perhaps that's why they need money. Responsive layout isn't anything too difficult to implement for a blog. It looks like he did pay someone to make the corporate site, or spent a bit of time on it, but yeah, this is nothing special. It is MIT licensed, so in theory, they could take 'poet' (also MIT licensed) and release it themselves and take investors money.
thatthatis 13y ago
I don't think you can build a vibrant community if you use the hostage model. Without a community, it would be hard for an OSS project to stay relevant for very long.
timruffles 13y ago
Why? Open Source just means the source is open. There's nothing to say it can't be paid for up front, or even that the binaries are free.
wwwtyro 13y ago
I like this model far more than the one that depends on declaring information to be property. In fact, I hope (and largely expect) it will become the predominant means of getting developers paid.
mrgoldenbrown 13y ago
The bait and switch is what got me too. I don't see the need for giving us the run around. It would be easy to be up front about what's going on. Changing a few sentences from present tense to future tense would go a long way.

api 13y ago

Stuff takes time to make, and time costs money unless you are independently wealthy or have a trust fund. This looks gorgeous, but many of these features are non-trivial to implement.

taude 13y ago
Or have an enterprise that allows workers to devote some part of their daily duty to support/build it...
mrgoldenbrown 13y ago
It's fine to ask for money, but they could solicit money without declaring themselves open source yet, with a promise to do so in the future, or they could actually release the source now, and continue to solicit money. Instead they are claiming to already be open source but not actually opening anything. I think that's what got people a little put off.

l33tbro 13y ago

Agreed. Seems a bit disingenuous to espouse the virtues of 'open source community' and putting yourself at the other end of the spectrum with 'evil' Facebook, then actually engaging in hat passing. Not dissing your efforts or your product (looks cool), but leave the colorful, evocative terms like 'open source' to the side next time and be honest about your marketing exercise intentions.

nobodysfool 13y ago
Yea, it looks okay, it's pretty much bootstrap with a black and white theme. The 'markdown live preview' seems neat, but it's nothing that hasn't been done before. The dashboard looks neat, but it's obviously not finished yet, and perhaps that's why they need money. Responsive layout isn't anything too difficult to implement for a blog. It looks like he did pay someone to make the corporate site, or spent a bit of time on it, but yeah, this is nothing special. It is MIT licensed, so in theory, they could take 'poet' (also MIT licensed) and release it themselves and take investors money.

thatthatis 13y ago

I don't think you can build a vibrant community if you use the hostage model. Without a community, it would be hard for an OSS project to stay relevant for very long.

timruffles 13y ago

Why? Open Source just means the source is open. There's nothing to say it can't be paid for up front, or even that the binaries are free.

wwwtyro 13y ago

I like this model far more than the one that depends on declaring information to be property. In fact, I hope (and largely expect) it will become the predominant means of getting developers paid.

mrgoldenbrown 13y ago

The bait and switch is what got me too. I don't see the need for giving us the run around. It would be easy to be up front about what's going on. Changing a few sentences from present tense to future tense would go a long way.