6 ms·

Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups?

31 points by markdodwell 13y ago

Wondering whether to open source an old project I worked on, and abandoned... It's a native Mac app for building static mockups (iOS and web apps). I doubt anyone would be interested, but thought it worth asking, see if anyone has any opinions. Screenshot: http://cl.ly/image/0o1h0q1L3u1o/o

nppc 13y ago
You can sell the source code for some one interested to take it up and develop further as a commercial product. Just OpenSourcing your code does not guarantee the success of the project.
domness 13y ago
I'd certainly like to work on it if it went open source.
kidmar 13y ago
Work on it and sell it or got open source, but please don't leave abandoned. there is way too much (good) software which died this way
moepstar 13y ago
Yeah, please put it on GitHub or something - I'd love to see it come back to life :)
arunagarwal 13y ago
Love to see this open source! Do not kill
raving-richard 13y ago
This is an area where (I think) it can't hurt to make it free. Simply chuck a license header at the start of each file, put a readme which states "this has been abandoned, but I'll happily link to anyone who wants to make it alive again" and put the whole lot up somewhere (e.g. github). My suggestion (because it's abandoned) is to use a permissive license.
vjdhama 13y ago
Make it open source, maybe someone can bring it back to life.
girvo 13y ago
Yes! I'd be super keen to use it, and hack on the source. It looks great :)
fotcorn 13y ago
Upload the code to github.com. Use a permissive license like 2-clause BSD or MIT, or even better make it public domain. You can add compiled binaries using releases: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Warning: using a permissive license like BSD or MIT will make certain people hate you. I was a bit shocked to discover this.
  - akama 13y ago
    Who gets mad for this reason?
    - sillysaurus2 13y ago
      I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it. Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to be taken away, and therefore BSD and MIT licenses should be strongly opposed.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        These "discussions" happen all the time, so I have no idea which one you're referring to, but the only reason anyone on the GPL side "gets mad" is because those on the BSD side whine childishly whenever someone puts something under the GPL.
        13y ago
stuaxo 13y ago
Definitely worth doing, make sure it is compilable and include a readme + put it on github. Of course nothing may happen (See autodesk animator and Executor) - both of these were open sourced over 10 years after they were popular though.
Freeboots 13y ago
For sure, lets see it on github
stuff4ben 13y ago
What an interesting way to gauge interest in an MVP. No doubt the OP is seeing how many hits he's getting on his link. The community is starting to froth a bit at the mouth judging by the comments too. Well-played sir!
liviu 13y ago
I would like to see this project open-source and put my contribution on it.
IgorPartola 13y ago
Do it. In fact I think it would be cool if all project that end up shutting down ended up being open sourced. There is no real reason to keep them closed. (I would argue that most projects could be open sources while they are running too, but that is a different story.)
jamesbritt 13y ago
How hard is it to build the executable? If there's any effort involved in turning the source code into a runnable app I suggest: - Open-sourcing it, perhaps using the GPL. - Selling pre-compiled binaries via gumroad
alex3t 13y ago
Open source it. I'v open sourced my bulk email sender for Mac https://github.com/alex3t/Bulky https://github.com/alex3t/Bulky about year ago and after that I got more purchases, but unfortunatelly only one fork from customer who want to customize the app
crystalmace 13y ago
I would open source it, if only because it is something that I personally would use and want to improve on. As it sits right now abandoned, it isn't doing any good for anyone, and in my opinion constitues wasted time if not used. My personal philosophy is to open source a project if I abandon it so that the effort that went into it is usefule to someone, if not me. Just my two cents on the issue.
geetarista 13y ago
Open sourcing it is a great idea. I'm sure many people would be interested and it would be a way to keep the project alive in some way, seeing as you've put so much time and effort into it. Also, open sourcing it doesn't preclude the opportunity of releasing it for sale in the Mac App Store if time permits down the road. Textual is a great example of this: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/textual-irc-client/id403012667?mt=12 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/textual-irc-client/id4030126... https://github.com/Codeux/Textual https://github.com/Codeux/Textual
BSousa 13y ago
I open sourced mine ( https://www.github.com/brunosousa/wireframes https://www.github.com/brunosousa/wireframes ) but I don't think anyone has taken an interest in that project. But if you really have no plans to continue working on it, just put it on GitHub and forget about it.
jdjdjd 13y ago
Am I the only one who thinks this looks like Balsamiq? http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups/ http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups/

nknighthb 13y ago
Actually, at the moment, it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under. GPL advocates make arguments for use of GPL. BSD advocates, as you've just demonstrated, prefer ad hominem attacks on RMS when they don't get what they selfishly feel entitled to.
- stephenr 13y ago
  > it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under except, according to RMS and his fans, any choice but GPL is "wrong".
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    So what? Lots of people think lots of things are wrong that lots of other people disagree with. That has nothing to do with anything I've said. You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way, but that's not at all what it's about. The subjective merits of licenses are not at issue in any way, shape, or form.
    - stephenr 13y ago
      > You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way Sorry my name isn't RMS. I don't have to "win".
  - belorn 13y ago
    That is false, and now you are representing someone else opinion incorrecly. Would you like having other saying "according to stephenr and people like him, he thinks ..." "Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses, or some other permissive non-copyleft license, is not doing wrong*" - last sentence at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html "Is not doing wrong", the Exact word for word opposite to your claim. Now please tell that you are sorry for misrepresenting someone else opinion and promise never to do it again. It is a shameful act.
    - stephenr 13y ago
      From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html >The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom. > The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If you want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage available to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later. If that isn't RMS saying he believes its wrong to release code under a BSD/MIT/etc permissive license, what is it? This is the whole reason so many people use BSD or MIT (or similar) these days - they just want to write code and let others use it. RMS seems to be locked in some kind of fantasy world where if someone uses something other than GPL, it will mean the end of the world. For extra kicks - http://blog.libertymcateer.com/2013/06/stallmans-blindspot-on-rails.html http://blog.libertymcateer.com/2013/06/stallmans-blindspot-o... Now please say you are sorry for cherry picking one comment from the website of an ORGANISATION I NEVER MENTIONED and attributing it to A PERSON.
      - belorn 13y ago
        You seem so confused, and you seem so angry at the world. The goal that RMS has been striving for are: The users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. When people create proprietary software, then that is counter to RMS goal. proprietary software denies the user under threat of lawsuit the freedom to copy, distribute, study, change and improve (and at times run) the software. BSD or MIT provides software to anyone, including people who use it for good, and people who use it for bad. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, it simply lie down and provided software indiscriminately. To compare it to an similar goal, non-profit aid organizations try to provided money to extremely poor people. Their goal is to help people not starve to death and help improve their lives. However, they do not want their money to go to criminals, thieves, and drug cartels as that would hurt their overarching goal. Doing nothing, i.e giving money indiscriminately, would be an act of weakness. The act however of giving money to poor would still not be "wrong". It is not wrong to indiscriminately give money to poor, but it is not the best way. It can even hurt the overarching goal of improving peoples lives. (That you are shamelessly misrepresenting someone else opinion is a problem. I am deeply sorry for you and I hope you can find help.)
rbanffy 13y ago
GPL-like licenses are designed to protect the freedoms of users at the expense of the freedoms downstream developers (or repackagers) would prefer to have. A Red Hat customer always gets full source code for all the GPL'ed software Red Hat sells them. BSD-like licenses emphasize the rights of downstream developers (and repackagers) at the expense of the freedoms of their users. A Cisco user has no access to all the originally BSD-licensed software inside their routers.
- stephenr 13y ago
  Yes, I understand the difference. My point is that RMS and his fans are near-religious in their belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    For some, the rights of the user are non-negotiable. Considering how much our freedoms depend on being able to trust our computers and networks, I am very much inclined to think that way too.
  - belorn 13y ago
    In total contrast to all BSD fans and their near-religious belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong. Is it now that I should do some ad hominem attacks on openbsd project leader, just so the message really sinks in?
    - stephenr 13y ago
      > In total contrast to all BSD fans and their near-religious belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong. The difference is, anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit. Using GPL code means you have to "drink the kool-aid" - they don't just think any other choice is wrong, they force their view onto others.
      - rbanffy 13y ago
        > anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit. Anyone but the users of "improved" versions.

stephenr 13y ago
> The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code.
- belorn 13y ago
  The free software movement was created to stop the proprietary software model. It is the reason the movement was created. For profit companies are created in order to create profit. Environmentalism was created to regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment. Police was created to stop criminals. Organizations has goals, and they want to achieve them. Permissive license both helps the free software movement, but also makes their goal harder to achieve, thus they favor Copyleft licenses which only helps the free software movement. It doesn't make permissive bad, wrong, evil or any other labels like that. It simply is not as good as copyleft for achieving the free software movements goal. In what way is this surprising?
  - stephenr 13y ago
    Further-more, (i knew i'd find the damn quote eventually): > Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better. http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-licensing&m=89249041326259&w=2 http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-licensing&m=89249041326259&w=2
    - teddyh 13y ago
      What? That quote does not support your claim either. What the quote calls “non-free” software is proprietary software. BSD licensed software is, on the contrary, free software. I have seen hints of this misconception before, but is this really a common thing? Do some people really believe that “free software” is exclusively GPL software?
      - stephenr 13y ago
        I'll accept your point, but the FSF messaging about this is not clear - one one page it lists BSD as "a free software licence" but on another identifies it separately (both in text and in a diagram) to "free software". Either way, RMS comments/actions re: BSD licensed code still don't match up with the "official" policy.
        teddyh 13y ago
        Link, please?
  - stephenr 13y ago
    RMS doesn't just "favour" GPL licensed code - he actively rejects objectively better code and even rejects collaborating with other projects, simply because they are not GPL licensed. So, how is that not calling something "bad"?