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's a native Mac app for building static mockups (iOS and web apps).

I doubt anyone would be interested, but thought it worth asking, see if anyone has any opinions.

Screenshot: http://cl.ly/image/0o1h0q1L3u1o/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

[rbanffy]

OTOH, if you would resent someone repackaging your work and selling it for a profit, use a GPL variant.

[chrismcb]

How does using a GPL variant prevent someone from repackaging your work and selling it for a profit?

[sillysaurus2]

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

[rbanffy]

The author is the one most likely to be upset when slightly rebranded versions of the program hit the app store.

[spdegabrielle]

Warning, if you use a viral licence like GPL some (different) people will hate you.

[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.

[tmikaeld]

I think it is the fact that some companies create crippleware open source project where parts of the core are open source and additional key parts are licensed under a sub-license that requires payment. Also, MIT and BSD doesn't enforce you to share added changes, fixes or additions to a project because of this - thus, hurting the open source community by the project not gaining (possibly) important or significant changes.

From a company standpoint, this makes sense if the parts are large and costed a lot to develop. Some companies eventually make these parts available eventually, some don't though - possible because open sourcing something that you initially charge for, could piss some customers off when they realize that they could have gotten it free.

[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.

[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://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 ) 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 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/

[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