The license however, for anyone looking into hosting this themselves, is not open source, but only source available. Here is the complete license (without the emojis, looks like they don't parse on HN):
Copyright (c) 2018 [Bruno Lemos](https://twitter.com/brunolemos).
This is project provided as is without any warranties.<br/>
By using this app you agree with its [privacy](PRIVACY.md) policy and the license below:
- You are encouraged to use, share and submit pull requests with improvements;
- You are allowed to use the official hosted version ([devhubapp.com](https://devhubapp.com/)) on your company or commercial projects;
- You are allowed to use the source code for personal non-commercial purposes only, like studing or contributing;
- You are not allowed to distribute this app anywhere, neither changed versions of this app, including but not limited to Apple Store, Google Play or Web; Changes to the source code can only be used locally, taking in consideration the other points of this License;
- You are not allowed to charge people for this app, neither bypass its paid features, if any;
Someone created a decent app, posted the source for it and allows you to play around with it. Be grateful, or ignore it, or bash it for technical reasons, but this "I don't actually care about the software I just came to say it's not really open source", because that one mention in the readme is odd to me.
I'm kind of assuming it might turn open core at some point in the future, but for now it's not.
Edit: I'm fully aware that the comment is controversial and not happily received by the HN community, but contrary to popular belief the open source initiative has no copyright claim to the words open source, merely to the open source initiative phrase. No downvotes will change that.
But even if you use the phrases by opensource.com:
The term "open source" refers to something people can
modify - fork
and share - pull request
because its design is publicly accessible.
I fully get why someone would dislike the strict way he defined his license terms, but it's still in accordance with modify and share.
"If you move beyond modifying the code and decide to distribute your modified version (or the original), that is the point at which there may be compliance issues with the open source license. You only need to check you are passing on the same rights to others as you received with the original code. "
You can distribute it just fine using the pull-requests. Again, it's fine to be against this, but "you're not allowing me to distribute it the way i want therefore it can't be open source" is a moot point.
I'm not argueing for his license, but I'm against the senseless bashing of licenses I disagree with.
In this case, however, you're not allowed to distribute additions at all, unless you contribute them back to the original project. In other words, forking's not allowed.
That's not commonly considered to be open source.
Not that I'm acusing the author of DevHub of lying, I'm just clarifying the problem.
Is there a writeup on how you architected the project to share 99% of code? I'd be really interested in reading that! From a skim it looks like React + React Native.
Really confusing title for someone who have no clue about what tweetdeck was, which I assume most of us don't. Still doesn't understand what it actually does for me since I have no clue what tweetdeck does?
No clear plan how to monetize project , ask 100% of github accounts permission ?
Sounds like a terrible idea of something that could later be sold to companies selling advertising.
I will say the permissions was a turn off for me as well though
This is barely "Open Source"
The "Issues", "Merge Requests", and "Todos" across the tab bar isn't helpful in the same way that I would _imagine_ a TweetDeck-ish layout by project or by item type would be
Most languages will handle file opening transparently, regardless of OS. Is that code sharing? What about the extra bit of logic you have to tack on because file system Y doesn't handle Z?
It also occurs to me that I would rather have 98% code sharing, nicely encapsulated in 1 file, rather than 99% spread over 101 files (not an accusation aimed at this code base).
Still seems impressive.
I signed up with public permissions, that should be fine. But please just remove the private part. It’s plain irresponsible even if there is no malicious intent. What if someone stole all the tokens from their DB?
Does it do more than display notifications in a different/better way? Issue triage or anything like that?