[HN Gopher] LibreSprite is an open source program for creating a...
___________________________________________________________________
LibreSprite is an open source program for creating and animating
your sprites
Author : pabs3
Score : 90 points
Date : 2021-02-08 10:28 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (libresprite.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (libresprite.github.io)
| bitwize wrote:
| As mentioned, this is an unmaintained fork of Aseprite which went
| "shared source" in 2016. If you want an actual open source,
| actually maintained, pixel art program I recommend GrafX2:
| http://grafx2.chez.com The major drawback is UI may not be
| "modern" enough for zoomer tastes, as it's based on old PC/Amiga
| painting programs, most notably Deluxe Paint. But I liked it so
| much I contributed code to it (a bugfix to get it working on
| NetBSD).
| freeduck wrote:
| How does it compare to synfig?
| RpFLCL wrote:
| Cool to see this posted. I've been using it for the past few
| weeks while making some simple 2d games Godot (my winter hobby).
|
| Overall it's been pretty good. Sometimes it slows down during
| tasks (a lot more than Photoshop or Clip Studio do while doing
| things like transforming a selection) but most of it works well.
| The animation features have been handy and were just simple
| enough to be useful.
| zeta0134 wrote:
| If you're having performance issues on non-Windows, you might
| try twiddling around with the UI options. In particular,
| setting "Screen Scaling" to 100% and "UI Scaling" up to 200% to
| compensate seems to _vastly_ improve performance on both my
| Pinebook, and even my gaming rig with a reasonably beefy AMD
| graphics card. I 'm not sure why it makes such a big
| difference, but it's night and day for me in terms of jank and
| overall smoothness.
| pkaye wrote:
| There is also Spriter. Its not open source but there is a free
| version and the paid version was a kick starter and they had it
| for sale at a low price on Humble bundle at times.
|
| https://brashmonkey.com/spriter-pro/
| ddtaylor wrote:
| Screenshots?
| iFire wrote:
| Aseprite isn't opensource so, LibreSprite is the last commit that
| was open source.
| Deukhoofd wrote:
| Aseprite is open source: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/
|
| It's just under a proprietary license.
| danShumway wrote:
| Usually when people use the term "open source", they'll be
| referring to an OSI-approved definition. I do distinguish
| between open source (lowercase) and Open Source (uppercase)
| but I'm in a minority on that point, most of your readers
| won't.
|
| In general, "source available" or "shared source" are terms
| that will lead to less confusion in situations like this.
|
| In terms of proprietary licenses, Aseprite is very good. It's
| one of the very, very few proprietary software products that
| I allow myself to use while developing games. But calling it
| open source is at best going to spark some
| disagreement/confusion, and at worst going to spark some
| needless debate from people (like me) who believe that the
| FOSS community needs to more closely guard how those terms
| are used and abused online.
|
| Note that the main Aseprite dev also doesn't use the words
| "open source" when describing its changed license:
| https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I don't know why OSI should get to define what 'Open
| Source' is.
| cycloptic wrote:
| Because they had a criteria and they conducted a review
| of lots of licenses. It's not any less "gatekeepery" if
| some random person or company takes their random license
| and says "here, we say this one license is open source
| based on our own criteria that we invented for ourselves,
| accept it."
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| You're confused. A person or company claiming some term
| indeed applies to something is not gate keeping. It's
| when the opposite happens, when a person or company
| denies you use of that term, for arbitrary reasons.
|
| So, I'd say OSI is, _by definition_ , designed to be the
| gatekeepers of "Open Source".
| cycloptic wrote:
| I would agree with you if anyone was saying "hey the term
| open source doesn't mean anything and you can use it for
| whatever you want" but that's not what I've ever seen
| happening, and I doubt anyone wants that because it would
| make the term useless. What we actually do see is other
| groups trying to promote their own alternate definition
| of the term and trying to deny the OSI's usage, for
| equally arbitrary reasons. It's the same form of
| gatekeeping. Please just come up with another phrase,
| that's what the OSI did after all when they found the
| term "free software" to be inadequate.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Please just come up with another phrase, that's what
| the OSI did
|
| I think a bit of a myth. There's documented existing use
| of the term in the same context before the OSI say they
| came up with it, and they were denied the trademark by
| the USPTO because it was an existing simply descriptive
| term.
| cycloptic wrote:
| I'm not saying they came up with the term before anyone
| in the world. While the term was used previously, it
| didn't have the concrete definition it does now. That's
| why they were able to do what they did.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| You said 'just come up with another phrase' and that's
| what they _didn 't_ do - they took an existing phrase
| with a similar meaning, and started to tell everyone they
| were going to advocate a different meaning. And then
| tried to trademark it to steal it from the community!!
| cycloptic wrote:
| Sorry I didn't clarify -- They came up with a phrase
| that, while it existed, didn't have a concrete
| definition. To give an example, if someone right now
| wants to create "Source Available Initiative" or
| something like that I think that would conceptually be
| fine, even though the term is already in use, there is no
| organization that is clearly defining what it means. Does
| that explain it better? (Although I think creating more
| organizations like this is a terrible idea for other
| reasons, mostly having to do with license proliferation)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > "Source Available Initiative" or something like that I
| think that would conceptually be fine
|
| I can understand that position but... they tried to
| trademark just 'open source' - without the 'initiative'
| part. They were told to rod off by the USPTO because
| you're not allowed to do that, so it's not ok by the law,
| whatever you think of it.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Unfortunately they don't own the term and can't tell
| anyone what to do with it.
| cycloptic wrote:
| You're right, but that misses the point, they put in the
| work to define and promote the term over a span of more
| than 20 years. If your plan is to undo that 20 years
| worth of work, you had better be prepared to take on the
| same amount of work over the same time span, and I hope
| the only reason it's done is because we can verifiably
| prove the results will be better for everyone.
| boogies wrote:
| That's often called "source available". It does not meet the
| Open Source Definition
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition) or
| the guidelines that was based on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...) or the original Free
| Software Definition
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition).
| blondin wrote:
| so, what's the big difference between source available and
| open source?
| zeta0134 wrote:
| The biggest difference in Aesprite's case is a limit on
| distribution. From their own blog post on the subject:
|
| > [The new EULA] still gives you the possibility to
| compile and modify the program for your own purposes, but
| it doesn't allow you to redistribute Aseprite.
|
| Fully open source licenses do not restrict the end user's
| freedoms in this way; rather, they generally _encourage_
| (and sometimes require) sharing source code modifications
| so the larger community can benefit from your work. This
| tends to be at odds with some commercial models
| (especially the "sell copies of software" model) so
| there's much debate about when each type of license is
| most appropriate.
| fenomas wrote:
| Am I missing something, or is this basically an unmaintained
| snapshot of Aseprite from 2016 (when it was last released under
| GPL)?
|
| Since Aseprite has come a long way since then, interested parties
| might want to check there instead. It's free to compile from
| source, or binaries are $20 on steam. (But it's not libre free -
| IIRC the only restriction is that you're not allowed to
| redistribute the source.)
|
| https://www.aseprite.org/
| whateveracct wrote:
| a derivation for the unfree version is even available in
| nixpkgs:
| https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/applicatio...
|
| Just add (aseprite.override { unfree = true;
| })
|
| to your configuration.nix or shell.nix or whatever. If you want
| an ever newer version, you can of course override and bump the
| src past what nixpkgs is at.
| app4soft wrote:
| > _an unmaintained snapshot of Aseprite from 2016 (when it was
| last released under GPL)?_
|
| It is _maintained_ [0] fork derived from the latest GPL-
| licensed Aseprite.
|
| [0]
| https://github.com/LibreSprite/libresprite.github.io/commits...
| riidom wrote:
| Is it too early to show some screenshots? I find that important
| when I look at a project. Just my 2 cents! :)
| app4soft wrote:
| > _Is it too early to show some screenshots?_
|
| _LibreSprite_ already ready[0] to use! ;)
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1333738121364709376
| soulofmischief wrote:
| > LibreSprite originated as a fork of Aseprite, developed by
| David Capello.
|
| Right there in on the page. The implication being that until
| the fork is mature, glancing at Aseprite screenshots should
| satisfy you. Cut the dev a little slack, this wasn't a show HN.
| rob74 wrote:
| Yeah... I'll try to write down my thoughts while using this
| website:
|
| "Ah, an app for designing sprites? Cool, where are the
| screenshots? Maybe I can try the navigation? Ah, it's a single-
| page site, do I really need a navigation bar to jump to the
| individual paragraphs of text on this very short page? BTW,
| it's called "libre", so where's the source code? Ah, must be
| the GitHub icon under "social networks", riiiiight..."
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm a developer myself, and this looks
| exactly like the info page I might build for a project - it's a
| nice page, but it has some UX issues which you only notice if
| you look at it from a user's perspective.
| genezeta wrote:
| Since it is a fork of aseprite [0], maybe that can give you an
| approximate idea of what it looks like. I mean some screenshots
| would be nice, sure, but maybe this helps you.
|
| [0] https://www.aseprite.org/ (also linked from the LibreSprite
| site)
| pixxel wrote:
| Just dropping a note that it was forked in 2016.
| Deukhoofd wrote:
| And that there haven't been many commits since, as opposed
| to Aseprite, which is still actively being worked on.
| ryanschneider wrote:
| FYI the "checkout our guide to contributing" link is a 404 to
| non-existent CONTRIBUTING.md.
| app4soft wrote:
| Do not hesitate to ask devs to fix it.[0]
|
| [0] https://github.com/libresprite/libresprite/issues
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-09 23:01 UTC)