
Ask HN: Open source an abandoned Mac app for mockups? - markdodwell
Wondering whether to open source an old project I worked on, and abandoned... It&#x27;s a native Mac app for building static mockups (iOS and web apps).<p>I doubt anyone would be interested, but thought it worth asking, see if anyone has any opinions.<p>Screenshot: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cl.ly&#x2F;image&#x2F;0o1h0q1L3u1o&#x2F;o
======
stuff4ben
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!

------
fotcorn
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
Warning: using a permissive license like BSD or MIT will make certain people
hate you. I was a bit shocked to discover this.

~~~
akama
Who gets mad for this reason?

~~~
sillysaurus2
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.

~~~
nknighthb
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.

~~~
stephenr
As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license
except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give
someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works
how they see fit.

GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of
freedom, to the exclusion of all others.

~~~
nknighthb
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
> 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".

~~~
belorn
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
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-o...](http://blog.libertymcateer.com/2013/06/stallmans-blindspot-on-
rails.html)

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
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.)

~~~
stephenr
> You seem so confused, and you seem so angry at the world.

I'm neither of those things. I've commented on one very specific topic -
RMS/etc and their cult-like dedication to anti-developer, anti-corporate
software licences.

My comments on this have not varied, so I don't know why you think I'm
confused.

This issue is also a tiny fraction of what makes up the world, and while this
issue concerns me, I'm hardly angry about it. Even if I were, how does that
equate to "angry with 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.

I'm well aware of his stated goals.

> BSD or MIT provides software to anyone, including people who use it for
> good, and people who use it for bad.

"use it for bad" \- if the thing they want to do is so bad, why would they be
bothered about breaking a license in the first place? Let's come back tot hat
later.

> 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.

Ok so first off. You just compared a HUGE community of software developers who
use BSD/MIT licences, to drug cartels and thieves. Seriously? Besides the
ridiculousness of the comparison, its downright fucking insulting.

A better comparison would be a charity run by a church group, that puts its
idealogical belief system before the goal of raising more money for the poor.
This actually happened in Australia a few years ago. Basically, the Salvation
Army complained because a song given freely by a comedian for a Christmas CD
(to generate funds for them to use to, you know, help the poor) makes
lighthearted jokes about christianity (i.e. saying he doesn't believe jesus is
magical).

This is no different than RMS (through the GPL) alienating hundreds if not
thousands of companies who are willing to contribute to open source efforts,
but also expect to be able to viably sell a product based on said code.

RMS goal is explicitly __not __ "better code". If I wrote a 100% compatible
alternative to GCC tomorrow, that produced 500% more efficient binaries, with
a 200% speed increase in compile time, but released it under the BSD license,
RMS would say "we can't use this" \- not because its not better. Because
someone else might ALSO take that product, package it up somehow, and make
money from people willing to pay for it. Does that other product prevent him
from using the original? No. Does it prevent me, the original author from
using, improving, or even making money from the original product? No.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't use the GPL license. Not at all. If you
feel its right for you do that. I'm saying don't get on some high fucking
horse telling people who choose not to use GPL, that what they're doing is
"wrong" (either directly or indirectly, or via comparison to thieves, drug
cartels and other criminals) because it doesn't fit with your specific
ideology.

~~~
belorn
I know that reading skills are sometimes low, but seriously, you should try
reread what I wrote.

> Ok so first off. You just compared a HUGE community of software developers
> who use BSD/MIT licences, to drug cartels and thieves

No, I described the BSD/MIT community as one that indiscriminately gives (in
the comparison, people who give indiscriminately money to poor people who
ask). Which then comes back to you being confused. If you are not confused, I
can not see how you so completely misunderstood it.

> If I wrote a 100% compatible alternative to GCC tomorrow, that produced 500%
> more efficient binaries, with a 200% speed increase in compile time, but
> released it under the BSD license

If I gave 500% more money to people in need than the red cross, but gave it
indiscriminately to anyone who ask, would that improve peoples life? Army
lords that recruits child armies would be happy to get some of that money, as
would drug cartels. Terrorist also. But 500% is a bigger number than 100% and
I am not preventing the original target of helping poor people. Poor people in
need, terrorists and drug cartels alike get money! Win-Win right?

Last: I'm not telling you that you should use the GPL. Not at all. If you feel
BSD/MIT is right for you do that. I'm saying don't get on some high fucking
horse telling people who choose not to use BSD, that what they're doing is
"wrong" because it doesn't fit with your specific ideology.

~~~
stephenr
> you should try reread what I wrote

you know you are right. Absolutely, you weren't comparing those who provide
code under non-GPL licenses to cartels and thieves.

You were, and are comparing companies and individuals make 100% legal use of
code that is released under a software license you happen to disagree with, to
cartels, thieves and apparently now terrorists.

That's so much better.

> Last: I'm not telling you that you should use the GPL

RMS/etc is telling everyone loud and clear that non-GPL code is "wrong", hence
those using a BSD/MIT license are wrong-doers.

Again, so much better.

~~~
belorn

      "Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses,
      or some other permissive non-copyleft license,
      is not doing wrong*"
    

When you can find a quote that contradicts that, you can claim that RMS/etc is
telling everyone that non-gpl code is wrong. Until then, you can keep
repeating this falsehood and I will keep looking at you as if you were a crazy
person.

~~~
stephenr
> The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code.

~~~
belorn
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
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
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
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
Link, please?

------
raving-richard
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.

------
geetarista
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/id4030126...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/textual-irc-
client/id403012667?mt=12)
[https://github.com/Codeux/Textual](https://github.com/Codeux/Textual)

------
nppc
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.

------
crystalmace
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.

------
kidmar
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

------
BSousa
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.

------
alex3t
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

------
IgorPartola
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.)

------
stuaxo
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.

------
girvo
Yes! I'd be super keen to use it, and hack on the source. It looks great :)

------
jdjdjd
Am I the only one who thinks this looks like Balsamiq?
[http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups/](http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups/)

------
jamesbritt
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

------
moepstar
Yeah, please put it on GitHub or something - I'd love to see it come back to
life :)

------
liviu
I would like to see this project open-source and put my contribution on it.

------
vjdhama
Make it open source, maybe someone can bring it back to life.

------
domness
I'd certainly like to work on it if it went open source.

------
arunagarwal
Love to see this open source! Do not kill

------
Freeboots
For sure, lets see it on github

