
Show HN: Cliapp.store – An App Store for CLI Apps - adius
https://www.feram.io/blog/2018-09-30_app_store_for_cli_apps/
======
WhatsName
The most important question for me looking at projects like git, httpie and
youtube-dl being sold for 2,99€... Have they actually been submitted by their
respective owner? If so kudos to this project for opening an additional
revenue stream for opensource projects.

If that's not the case, this seems like yet another shady project, like plenty
posted recently (I remember a similar one based on the softwarestack used),
where the name of big successful opensource projects is used to collect money
on their behalf and afterwards when enough money is piled up, they are offered
to take the money on terms set by the marketplace.

~~~
akx
There are pricing info modals that say that 70% of the proceeds of those apps
go to their respective developers. These apps, it seems, have been seeded into
the store by the authors of the platform.

~~~
jamestomasino
All commits to date have been by the author of cli-apps. There have been no
PRs or contributions from other maintainers.

------
woodruffw
Most of the programs that you're publishing on your "app store" have
independent monetization channels, including direct donations from their users
via _accounts that they control_. They might be surprised (and annoyed) to
discover that you're charging for their work, even if the majority of that
money ultimately makes it to them.

As others have pointed out, you probably have the legal right to run this sort
of store. However, you should _strongly_ consider consulting each project
before listing them -- you might find that many are hostile to this sort of
platform, and would prefer not to be hosted on it.

~~~
FooBarWidget
Such a double standard.

Every time an open source project complains about the challenges of
monetization (see the recent Redis controversy), people say "Don't like other
companies making money off your software? Then don't license it that way!"

But now that someone is actually doing that, people are not happy.

My hypothesis is that people's opinion on this subject depends on what's
convenient for them, and is not necessarily a reflection on whether the act
itself is a good one or not.

People can already get all these CLI apps very conveniently from a package
manager, for free, and _that_ is the reason why the idea of a paid app store
disgusts people.

Every time a GPL vs BSD conversation comes up, most people support BSD, saying
that it's "more free". But I think the true reason is that people want to be
able to use BSD-licensed libraries in their apps, which they profit from.

Why were so many people against Redis Labs trying to protect their revenue
streams? I think it's because people felt threatened that they may have to pay
more in the future.

We, as a community, need to make up our minds and stop being misled by our own
agendas. It is fine to have one's own agenda but stop conflating that with
moral issues.

~~~
detaro
They are openly lying about the terms. Click the "trial license" (what?) text
on any of the shop pages and read

> _You can try out Pandoc for free. To use it regularly, you must buy a
> license._

They do not detail how they intent to share the money with the authors. Did
they prepare with all the authors, are or they collecting money in their name
without them agreeing to that? E.g. money paid to buy something is different
than a donation from a tax perspective: how many authors are actually going to
go to the paperwork to get the money?

~~~
adius
There is a "Pricing Info" link right below the payment button where I describe
meticulously where the money goes. Offering an unlimited trail for an actually
commercial product is a standard (and I think very generous) licensing term.
Just check out [https://www.sublimetext.com](https://www.sublimetext.com).

~~~
detaro
Pandoc is not a commercial product. By claiming one must buy a license, you
are misrepresenting its actual license. If you're actually selling your own
wrapper around it, make that _clear_.

The pricing info link also sounds dangerously like what other projects have
done in the past: "we take the money and put it in a pot, and at some point
the author can ask us for the money and we'll figure out how to get it to
them". This means users wanting to support the dev unwittingly put the money
in a pot the dev has then to go through additional effort and potentially
expense to access, which the users would have avoided if they'd known, e.g.
through a direct donation. If you actually have clear agreements with authors
on how this is going to work, you should emphasize that. If you don't, that
should be clear too.

------
Operyl
Why should I pay you, whom will inevitably take a cut on top of the payment
processing cut, when I can donate to the developer directly where only the
payment processing cut exists? I.e. you arbitrarily have `jq` listed for 2.99
.. why?

~~~
h1d
Because you won't otherwise.

~~~
Operyl
I'm sorry that you assumed the worst of me, but I definitely do support some
of the tools I use the most via either personal funds or, in the case of work,
work funds.

This guy is just sticking his hand in a pot I feel he doesn't need to.

Where it isn't with money, I support with time to the project. Yes, I can't
support _every tiny thing_ I use, but it's not a requirement.

------
daw___
"You can try out Git for free. To use it regularly, you must buy a license."

Which license does this notice message refer to? This is completely wrong!

~~~
adius
I agree, this is very badly phrased for git. It refers to the version of git
we're selling, which only really makes sense as soon as we start to provide
our own downloads (soon…).

~~~
joshka
To be accurate, it's badly phrased for most products. You (effectively) can't
use software unless you're licensed to do so. Every app you ship that an end
user can use must therefore be licensed. Most open source licenses contain
clauses that the version that you're delivering (either for free or charging
for it) retain the original license conditions.

------
sago
I appreciate the idea of allowing utility CLI programs to be monetised by
their authors. But it does look at the moment like the site is charging for
git, pandoc, etc.

Is any of that money going to the authors?

Of course it is technically legal to charge for these things. But it is
unlikely to endear you to the community.

~~~
Operyl
Supposedly:

The payment is composed of following parts:

19 % (0.57 €) is German VAT

Of the remaining 81 % (2.42 €)

70 % (1.69 €) go to the developer of the app (Ricardo Garcia). This amount is
not transferred immediately, but aggregated until a threshold of 10 € is
exceeded to reduce transaction costs.

30 % (0.73 €) go to us (Feram GmbH) in order to power this website and ensure
a sustainable development.

~~~
sago
I was asking about open source apps that they are selling on the store without
the copyright holders' knowledge or permission. (On the basis that neither
knowledge or permission is legally required.)

~~~
detaro
They _claim_ the same for those. How they implement that is a _good_ question.

------
sdinsn
This sounds like you are trying to trick people into paying for free
applications. Scummy.

------
Fnoord
All of these applications and a whole lot more are available in Homebrew as
well. Which can be kept upgraded with Topgrade [1]

[1]
[https://github.com/r-darwish/topgrade](https://github.com/r-darwish/topgrade)

------
joshka
I understand that this is flagged now, because the idea seems to have
significant obvious problems. The discussion on this though and why those
problems exist and what to do better would be good to continue however.

------
RayDonnelly
So this is literally monetisation [1] based on the work of Homebrew [2]?

[1] [https://github.com/feramhq/cli-
apps/blob/master/git/main.yam...](https://github.com/feramhq/cli-
apps/blob/master/git/main.yaml#L23) [2] [https://github.com/feramhq/cli-
apps/blob/master/git/main.yam...](https://github.com/feramhq/cli-
apps/blob/master/git/main.yaml#L36-L37)

------
fiatjaf
[https://github.com/agarrharr/awesome-cli-
apps](https://github.com/agarrharr/awesome-cli-apps)

------
joshka
I really like the root need of this, paying for open source, but I think the
execution is significantly off. It might be nice to see an open source
foundation create something similar to how topgrade works, but for funding.

------
9935c101ab17a66
This is terrible. The pricing info page is completely misleading, and written
in a way that obscures the fact that all of this software is available
completely for free.

------
rhardih
Can anyone explain to me in layman terms, how this is legal? I mean charging
money for freely available open source tools, not owned by this site?

~~~
FooBarWidget
Free software / open source allows charging money. This is even intentional.
See also
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)

In case of copyleft licenses, the only thing not allowed is preventing your
buyers from exercising the same freedom you had. That is, they are allowed to
redistribute without cost, and they too are allowed to sell.

------
Jack5500
This is really shady and I don't see advantages over a conventional package
manager

