[scbrg]

> However, if I ran into this incidentally (not posted to HN for review), I would never use this. I'd see the lack of a github link on the top right, and assume it's a some kind of startup making some prototype hosted tool.

Yeah, it's absolutely horrible when the GitHub link is in the bottom right rather than the top right. Completely unforgivable. Geez.

Do (Free|Net|Open)BSD and GNU tools qualify as open source? No GitHub link as far as the eye can see :)

[blagie]

What's in the bottom right is still not the same. Plenty of projects use github issues for issue tracking without being open-source. This links to the github issues. It's still three clicks to find out it's open-source. In addition, the upside of following standard patterns is pretty well-established. Most of us are tuned to ignore pop-overs.

Ways I've seen this done:

- Clear github icon (visual cue)

- "Fork us on github" template

- Adding the words "open-source" somewhere (or even XXX-licensed). The "about" page could start "An open-source tool for drawing UML diagrams based on a simple syntax."

There's no reason to go over-the-top. Again, the reason people post things to HN is generally to generate visibility and to gain feedback. People don't write feedback to be mean but to help projects improve.

It's not "completely unforgivable" but I gave a bit of simple feedback which might reduce friction a bit and which would take a few minutes to implement. I appreciate similar feedback on my projects. In this case, for me (n=1), I've been derailed from adopting projects based on similar levels of friction. I will pull up a many things, prune them pretty quickly, and then do a deep dive into the most promising. I've always found user studies and friendly reviews helpful for avoiding these sorts of frictions in my own work.

[darkwater]

I think that the main complaint was a lack of prominence to what the thing actually is, and its license.

[f1shy]

Was only a feedback.