
LibreSprite – fork of last open-source release of Aseprite pixel art editor - app4soft
https://github.com/LibreSprite/LibreSprite
======
akavel
Rationale, if you went to the comments first, same as me:
[https://github.com/LibreSprite/LibreSprite/issues/1](https://github.com/LibreSprite/LibreSprite/issues/1)

 _" Since
[https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite](https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite)
went proprietary on Aug 26th, 2016 (aseprite/aseprite@5ecc356), this fork and
corresponding GitHub organization were created to preserve the last GPLv2
version of the code._

 _Our reasons for doing so are multiple and likely different for all fork
initiators, but a strong belief in free software is definitely to name, and as
the GPLv2 license allows us to, we want to safeguard this nice open source
piece of software. "_

\- also included in the Readme.

~~~
mrspeaker
I love open source and I wish it was still GPLv2, but am also a huge fan of
Aseprite. It was the best $15 I've spent on software. Every time I open it up
there is some update that I'm excited about (and absolutely tonnes of new
stuff since 2016 [edit: "1274 commits behind aseprite:master" to be precise]).
Plus, the interface makes me smile every time.

I'm certainly not against LibreSprite - I'm keen to see where they take it -
but just saying, "hats off" to Aseprite!

~~~
pjmlp
This is why it is so hard to make money on desktop FOSS software.

As soon as the developer asks to be supported, the run to fork and keep using
it for free starts.

Then people wonder why most desktop related companies focus on Apple and
Microsoft platforms.

~~~
gman83
"Asks to be supported" is different from "changes the license from FOSS to
proprietary". Sure, they can do that, but don't complain when someone forks
your software then.

~~~
pjmlp
Because "Asks to be supported" usually boils down to a few donations and
patreon accounts that hardly pay the bills for most developers, unless they
have other sources of income.

~~~
PyroLagus
Yeah, that usually happens. However, the sway creator (SirCmpwn) is doing
surprisingly well; having received $5,480 for his sway crowdfund[1] and
getting over $500 per month in donations if my math is correct.[2] That's not
really that much, but it is surprisingly much for a single open source dev.
I'm not sure if it's the community or the fact that he works on a bunch of
different projects, but given that Krita was able to raise $38,579[3], we
should perhaps re-evaluate the preconception that the open source community
(in this case the artist community inside the open source community) is
opposed to paying. It certainly used to be true, but I'm not sure if that's
still the case. Perhaps Aseprite is too niche in comparison to Krita, but then
you can still get Aseprite for free since the code is free on Github, you just
have to compile it yourself. So it seems like the creator is less concerned
about users not paying him and more about someone making a fork that users can
get for free (or perhaps even worse: said forker selling the fork.) And in
that case, there's unfortunately not much you can do. Donations or
subscriptions would work a bit better since users are now paying you to work
on improving the software and producing updates (which a simple fork can't do)
rather than for the work you've already done (which can be easily duplicated,
open source or not), but that won't help if people think that the fork is the
official product. So now it's an issue of branding and advertising, I think.

And maybe, the reason why SirCmpwn, Krita, Blender (well, that one's a bit of
a special case), and the several Youtube channels that are doing fine on
Patreon donations is that they emphasize that you're paying them for the
_work_ they're doing and not for the product. That you're enabling them to
continue making what you like. With traditional marketing, there's a
disconnect between the product and the work. You think "this movie/this video
game/this software can be copied over a thousand times in a matter of seconds,
so downloading a pirated copy isn't going to hurt anyone", but you don't think
"by buying this copy, I'm going to support its creators who can then go on to
improve it or make something else that I'll like." And that's probably where
the anti-piracy messages go wrong. "Don't steal", "you wouldn't download a
car"; those messages don't exactly make sense when it comes to digital
products. Of course people would download cars if we could clone them for free
with the click of a button. And it's not like we need to support the creators
so they can make car2. One car should last long enough. It's such a silly
comparison. And of course people don't want to throw money at a company that
thinks they can milk infinite cash out of a product that they can duplicate
infinitely, who would? Couple that with the fact that piracy from those who
couldn't afford to pay for the product anyways doesn't actually cause any
loss, and it's obvious that the analogy doesn't make sense. How can something
that's more easily multiplied than water be considered a product? It gets even
more confusing when you consider ownership. For every other product, you buy
it to obtain ownership, but in the case of software you buy it to obtain a
_license_ , which is really abstract with most licenses being incomprehensible
for most end-users. And not just is it abstract and hard to understand, it
also _feels_ unfair. You pay money money for this thing, which doesn't even
seem to have any value on its own because value is usually defined by scarcity
- this thing is just made scarce artificially - and you don't even get to own
it. You don't get to lend it. You don't get to resell it. You just get to use
it, and even there you just get to use it exactly how the author wants you to
use it. At least for software, it makes a lot more sense to market the service
of creating the software, in my opinion.

I'm not sure if that would also be better for artistic creations, but
considering that the service model also seems to work well for Youtube
donations (and early access video games) it might work. I think it makes more
sense to pay the artist to create more of the things that I like rather than
paying for a copy (that cost a cent to create) of something they made 20 years
ago. It's even worse when the creator is long dead, but that's a story for a
different time. But on a related note, part of the problem may be that
companies push themselves in front of the creative minds when it comes to
advertisement. While it makes sense to have a unified representation for a
series of movies when you go to watch it, you feel like you're giving your
money to Disney, not the people who made the movie. You feel like you're
giving your money to an inanimate entity that has already amassed millions,
led by some rich people who don't have a single creative bone in their bodies.
Which is partially true, but you're also paying the creative staff to make the
next movie that you'll probably enjoy.

Small projects, however, have the benefit that you can feel like you're
directly supporting the creator, you just have to make sure to emphasize that
aspect: that supporters pay you to make stuff, not for stuff you already made.

Obviously this doesn't cover all cases like one-off projects that don't
require any more work (but let's be honest, when would that ever apply to a
piece of software? there's always stuff to fix) and where the author doesn't
plan on making anything else, but I think for active creators the "Asks to be
supported" model would probably work a lot better than the "I made this, now
pay me to get a copy of it" model.

That said. I just saw another link to the Aseprite blog[4] and it seems like
the author was also displeased with the current state of Linux packaging,
which is also important but a different issue from monetary support.

[1] [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sway-hackathon-
software/](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sway-hackathon-software/)

[2] [https://drewdevault.com/backers](https://drewdevault.com/backers)

[3]
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/krita/krita-2016-lets-m...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/krita/krita-2016-lets-
make-text-and-vector-art-awesome)

[4] [https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-
license/](https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/)

~~~
abritinthebay
> That's not really that much, but it is surprisingly much for a single open
> source dev.

$500 a month? That means, roughly, it's worth ~4 hours of his time _a month_.
Tops.

Yikes. That's a perfect illustration of the issue right there that this is
considered good for OSS support.

------
davexunit
Glad someone is doing this. The author pulled a bait and switch and got away
with it because the software wasn't really a community project to begin with.
The switch happened right after I spent a good amount of time getting
Aseprite's finicky build system to work so I could package it for a distro. If
I had known the author was going to betray the users I wouldn't have bothered.

After that I learned about Grafx2, which is free and pretty featureful:
[https://pulkomandy.tk/projects/GrafX2](https://pulkomandy.tk/projects/GrafX2)

~~~
eropple
Most open-source projects aren't "community projects" and "betray the users"
is an interesting way to phrase "tried to get people to support the project,
they by and large refused, and so he made it distinctly less optional".

You're better than that, man. This stuff goes both ways.

~~~
TeddyDD
Well, I bought Aseprite while it was FOSS, and license was one of the reasons
I chosen it instead of PyxelEdit. I wound't say I feel betrayed... more like
disappointed.

~~~
eropple
Don't get me wrong--I bought it, too. But I'm not disappointed in the author.
I am disappointed in the userbase that wouldn't put up to make it viable. Like
I said, this stuff is a two-way street.

(This is also why I, for a project I'm about to release, am doing an
OSS/commercial split with higher-end features not part of the OSS version. But
my software is designed for enterprise use, and they're used to paying for
things.)

------
simosx
I created a snap package for LibreSprite. You can try it out on Linux (with
snap package support:
[https://docs.snapcraft.io/core/install](https://docs.snapcraft.io/core/install))
by running

sudo snap install libresprite-simosx

Then, run 'libresprite-simosx.libresprite' to launch it.

Follow here the discussion for getting an official snap package of
LibreSprite:
[https://github.com/LibreSprite/LibreSprite/pull/25](https://github.com/LibreSprite/LibreSprite/pull/25)

------
jasonkostempski
I must have bought it right when it went proprietary, I think I was introduced
to it via HN but I dont remember any mention of it formerly being libre. I
only bought it because I thought my kid would enjoy playing with it, I chose
it because it was on sale, DRM free and I couldn't find a decent libre editor.
Guess I didn't search hard enough. My kid hasn't opened it since :/

~~~
abritinthebay
It was never "free" as such - you were always supposed to pay for it - but it
was _possible_ to build it yourself. You did the right thing.

~~~
jasonkostempski
You're comment made me look into it. So it's still open source, just not GPL?
Looks like I simply fell for a sales tactic targeting compulsion and naivety.
They got my money, good for them. Anything associated with their name is an
immediate pass for me from here out. No one did the right thing here.

~~~
abritinthebay
It’s open source but not free software. I’m honestly ok with that because I
think making a living is important & the Linux distros are _really_ bad at
supporting authors of software.

Fixable problem but appears to lack the will.

------
jstewartmobile
At $14.99, dude is _already_ giving it away. LibreSprite is taking the GPL
religion into the kool-aid zone.

I'll go proprietary on this one. The man has earned it.

[https://www.aseprite.org](https://www.aseprite.org)

~~~
app4soft
This news not about price, this news about FOSS software development, _dude_.

~~~
jstewartmobile
He did the overwhelming majority of the work, and put it out there for free
for a long time. If he is at a point in his life where he needs to monetize,
I'm glad to support him just out of gratitude.

It's a dick move to undercut him after that.

------
app4soft
Details[0]

[0]
[https://github.com/LibreSprite/LibreSprite/issues/10#issueco...](https://github.com/LibreSprite/LibreSprite/issues/10#issuecomment-394151936)

~~~
voltagex_
Sorry, this doesn't really help people who have no idea what Aesprite is or
why it's suddenly an issue

[https://www.aseprite.org/](https://www.aseprite.org/), looks like a really
nice pixel art editor / sprite editor.

The author needs to eat, therefore relicense (I think).

It seems like this is the crux of the matter:
[https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-
license/](https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/) and
[https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/issues/1666](https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/issues/1666)
[https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite#license](https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite#license)

~~~
deze333
Who's really got skin in the game? Perhaps the author who spent countless
hours pushing the project along all those years, he took all the risks and
uncertainties. Yes, all contributions did help but being a humble contributor
I wouldn't ask for any kind of eternal obligation. Otherwise what kind of help
is that? If one wants to give, they just give, full stop. Why not stick to
free will? Notice the word free.

~~~
yetanother1980
If you feel this way you should never open source your work. Licences like the
GPL as well as licences like BSD/MIT explicitly allow for forks like this.

------
jchw
I purchased Aseprite because it's nice. I'm curious if the author has
ultimately benefited from changing the license, though. I'm not sure what it
does practically aside from that Linux distributions can no longer package it.

~~~
app4soft
> I'm not sure what it does practically aside from that Linux distributions
> can no longer package it.

What you know about "OpenOffice.org & LibreOffice"?

And what you know about "QCAD & LibreCAD"?

~~~
vonmoltke
How are any of those projects relevant to this discussion?

~~~
app4soft
Try google what happen with OpenOffice.org and QCAD, and why LibreOffice and
LibreCAD now exists.

~~~
vonmoltke
All four of those projects are free and open source. Aseprite is, as of
26AUG16, paid proprietary software. jchw's statement was about the ability, or
lack thereof, for Linux distributions to package such software.

How are schisms in free, open source projects relevant to the inability for
Linux distributions to package and distribute paid proprietary software?

~~~
app4soft
> All four of those projects are free and open source.

Aseprite is 'not fully proprietary', as it has 'sources open', but not free as
other FOSS.

> How are schisms in free, open source projects relevant to the inability for
> Linux.

You manipulate about "inability for Linux"? For what?

This news about cross-platform software. There NO any words in this thread
about any Linux packaging issues.

~~~
vonmoltke
> This news about cross-platform software. There NO any words in this thread
> about any Linux packaging issues.

>> I'm not sure what it does practically aside from that Linux distributions
can no longer package it.

What you quoted to start this thread is _literally about Linux packaging
issues_.

~~~
app4soft
> What you quoted

I tell that _issue is not only in Linux packaging, but in full changing poject
development strategy_ : moving from "FOSS", to "proprietary+open sourcecode".

That's why I asked, what he know about "QCAD & LibreCAD; OpenOffice &
LibreOffice" stories.

@jchw told that _he don 't know any reason why Aseprite forked to LibreSprite,
other than Linux distribution issue_.

I give him an answer, that _issue with Aseprite was NOT only in Linux
packaging, but in changing strategy of original project development_
(including re-licensing of source code to non-FOSS software). And according
that I told _that there are already precedents for similar situations -- as
result we has now LibreOffice & LibreCAD_.

~~~
vonmoltke
> @jchw told that he don't know any reason why Aseprite forked to LibreSprite,
> other than Linux distribution issue.

That is not at all what the post said. jchw's post (with my annotations):

> I purchased Aseprite because it's nice. I'm curious if the author has
> ultimately benefited from changing the license [of ASEprite], though. I'm
> not sure what it [making ASEsprite proprietay] does practically aside from
> that Linux distributions can no longer package it [ASEprite].

Nothing in that post is referring to LibreSprite. jchw is not asking why
LibreSprite exists. jchw is asking whether taking ASEprite actually benefitted
the author of ASEprite in the long run.

