[HN Gopher] Show HN: Free and open-source illustrations for your...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Free and open-source illustrations for your projects
Author : murtaza_alexa
Score : 397 points
Date : 2022-02-14 14:40 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (iradesign.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (iradesign.io)
| alexk307 wrote:
| I love this! Great job
| Sm0keDev wrote:
| theraido wrote:
| So it's like https://undraw.co/illustrations
| lekevicius wrote:
| This is my favorite of these collections. Consistent style, not
| too many different fills (to change colors), and quite easy to
| mix and match different illustrations.
| FractalHQ wrote:
| Years ago when I discovered undraw I thought so too. Now,
| after seeing hundreds of them on various websites, the site
| of them instantly sours my perception of the brand and
| cheapens the perceived quality. I understand why they are so
| over-used though. Illustration is hard!
| [deleted]
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Copyright?
|
| How does copyright work for something like this?
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Do want to say there is quite a spectrum in the quality of free
| illustrations out there. I personally check out a bit when I see
| anything that looks like or is in the style of undraw[0].
|
| The best I've found and go back to is ManyPixels -- their free
| gallery is amazing:
|
| https://www.manypixels.co/gallery
|
| The stuff on the gallery above is free to use, but I always feel
| a little guilty -- I need to actually pay them for something some
| day. Their pricing is intense but they put out great work.
|
| [0]: https://undraw.co/illustrations
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| GordonS wrote:
| I was interested in ManyPixels, but wow, that is an expensive
| service!
|
| From what you said though, it sounds like they might have a
| free plan, only I can't see anything about that on their site?
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| So you can use the stuff from the gallery for free! No
| attribution is even required. I'm going to update my earlier
| comment to make that clear.
| mdoms wrote:
| Why does every Silicon Valley company have these creepy looking
| people on their websites?
| digisign wrote:
| It's simpler and a smaller download than the iStockPhoto of
| yester-decade.
|
| Criticism would be more constructive however, if it included an
| example of something better.
| Mizza wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
|
| Facebook did it, everybody copies Facebook. It's awful.
| boppo1 wrote:
| I've been looking for a term for this, thank you.
| [deleted]
| newsbinator wrote:
| Like another commenter said, it's awful: they're visually
| lifeless and they don't add value in terms of being
| illustrative of the idea their associated text block is meant
| to convey, nor do they catch the eye in the first place.
|
| You might as well have a lorem-ipsum cat picture in their
| place, since it has about the same utility.
| phaedrus wrote:
| I'm working on a free and open source Windows app to both learn
| and demo the new C++ coroutines. I realized one metaphor for how
| they're implemented is a Choose Your Own Adventure story.
|
| I wanted to have pictures with the text and choices, but although
| I can draw I didn't want to spend that kind of time for something
| that's a supporting element to the main point of the work.
|
| These illustrations look like they'd work well for that! Unlike
| some of the other free image sites people shared, I think the
| enveloping backgrounds you provide with the foreground people and
| objects lends itself to storytelling use.
| andjd wrote:
| Anyone else find it odd that the colors are (somewhat)
| customizable, but the skin tones aren't? I know that there's more
| to making a set of illustrations like this properly inclusive
| beyond just skin tone, but that seems like a strange omission
| given that the feature was already created.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| It's an omission, but you can easily change anything in the
| graphics in any editor.
| starkd wrote:
| The color customization didn't seem to work when I tried it.
| Perhaps that's just a custom feature he's offering. When
| selecting, nothing changes.
| e98cuenc wrote:
| Shameless plug, we have a good set of illustrations on
| https://www.storyset.com/. The big difference is StorySet
| illustrations can be animated and the styles are different. Both
| products are quite complementary.
| nnf wrote:
| Very nice. Is there an option to pay for illustrations to avoid
| having to place an attribution link?
| e98cuenc wrote:
| Excellent question... we don't have a separate subscription
| for StorySet, but you can download all these illustrations in
| Freepik.com without attributing if you subscribe to Freepik.
|
| It's an oversight that we don't allow explicitly in the terms
| of use of the Freepik subscription to use content downloaded
| from StorySet without attribution. Let me try to fix that
| tomorrow.
|
| Sorry the system is not straightforward, StorySet is a side
| project and we didn't think of monetizing it.
|
| Super glad you like it!
| punkspider wrote:
| This is awesome! Thanks!
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| These are the lifeless illustrations colloquially known as
| "Corporate Memphis".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
|
| https://www.wired.co.uk/article/corporate-memphis-design-tec...
|
| Originally coined by: https://www.are.na/claire-l-
| evans/corporate-memphis
| gist wrote:
| Exactly (thanks never heard that term). Essentially similar to
| clip art or stock photography.
| sunnyam wrote:
| See also https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckalegriaart
| [deleted]
| gkoberger wrote:
| I never want to criticize something that someone has made, but I
| do want to offer an alternative!
|
| I think you'd be SHOCKED how much amazing, completely custom
| artwork is available out there on sites like Fiverr and Upwork.
| For $100, you can get something beautiful and not generic... and
| best of all, support an artist!
|
| (Obviously you can eventually spend significantly more on
| talented designers, once your project becomes more successful!
| Design isn't cheap, but it definitely can scale as your needs and
| wallet do.)
| jopsen wrote:
| How do you know you're not being sold something copy/pasted
| from an image search?
| gkoberger wrote:
| I'm confident there are people out there running scams, but
| every single artist I've used has done something so custom
| that it's 100% definitely made by them specifically for me.
|
| They also tend to send sketches beforehand, and most have a
| very distinct style.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jph wrote:
| This is excellent! And the license is on the home page: "MIT
| License: Use it on commercial or personal projects. Every design
| component we use to create our products can be downloaded for
| free under MIT License."
| a2800276 wrote:
| But ... under "Licenses" in the footer it says:
|
| "There are some things you can't do:
|
| -You can't use our products to create Templates, UI Kits,
| Dashboards, Themes and Plugins that are distributed on your
| website or other marketplaces and they do direct competition to
| us.
|
| -You can't deliver our source code to the general public
| through Open Source Projects without our written consent.
|
| -You can't use our products to create website/app generators.
|
| -You can't redistribute or resell our products source files as
| they are."
|
| It's a bit confusing.
| w-j-w wrote:
| mtmail wrote:
| I think paragraph (5) of https://www.creative-
| tim.com/license?ref=iradesign-footer applies here "There can
| be different components in some of our Items that can have a
| separate License from this one, and other license terms may
| apply to that specific component. Usually, those components
| come with a Free and Open Source MIT License."
| murtaza_alexa wrote:
| No worries! You can use the illustrations as you want. You
| can just give credits if you want. The paragraph from our
| license which says that you can't use products to create
| templates, and so on, applies to our templates (containing
| code), not illustrations.
| electroly wrote:
| Wait... what? The MIT license applies only to the
| _illustrations_? The MIT license is specifically a
| software license and doesn 't really work for
| illustrations, except to the extent that they make up the
| software's associated documentation. Can you elaborate
| what this means? I would have expected exactly the
| opposite: that the code is MIT licensed and the
| illustrations are under your custom license. The reverse
| is a very bizarre arrangement.
|
| It seems to me that the MIT license isn't really involved
| at all here. It can't apply to standalone illustrations,
| because MIT is a software license, and you're not open
| sourcing the code. What, specifically, is MIT licensed
| here?
|
| For illustrations you want something like Creative
| Commons. Those licenses are not software-specific like
| MIT is.
| kuschku wrote:
| > and you're not open sourcing the code. What,
| specifically, is MIT licensed here?
|
| Considering the Artwork is SVG, it seems like the SVG
| code of the artwork is under MIT
| reedciccio wrote:
| I'd recommend looking into known licenses like the
| Creative Commons license set for the artwork. For the
| software part of your product check the most used open
| source licenses, including the copyleft ones if you want
| to keep the option to negotiate commercial deals.
| rglover wrote:
| Can't wait for the subtle, inadvertent emotional malady that is a
| generation raised on faceless (and legless!) bubble people
| cartoons.
| imgabe wrote:
| What a sad, weak people we must be, to be emotionally destroyed
| by marketing material. How disappointing for humanity to
| survive wars famines and plagues only to be done in by
| insufficiently detailed cartoons.
| rglover wrote:
| When major employers have cry closets and we constantly tell
| people to supplant normal human emotions with
| pharmaceuticals, I'm going to roll the dice and say the
| trajectory is decidedly _downward_. At least, for a short
| while.
| [deleted]
| nbzso wrote:
| The more and more UI and Illustration are "accessible" and
| "cheap/free" the more people like me who can produce quality
| illustrations will have big bucks. So keep it rolling with
| Corporate Memphisication.
| pixxel wrote:
| Free illustrations are the new
| 'business_person_pointing_at_computer.jpg'.
| [deleted]
| inasmuch wrote:
| Sorry to be a Scrooge, but I wish people would stop doing this.
| It's hard enough to make a living as an illustrator in the age of
| digital photography and photobashing without having to compete
| with generic (which I mean both descriptively and--sorry--
| pejoratively) illustration libraries. This stuff undermines the
| discipline and suggests that its skills are easily acquired and
| the work is easily done, so there's no reason to compensate
| people for it.
|
| There's a lot of talk on HN about the importance of paying for
| things, and while I know that most of that is in opposition to
| 'paying' with your privacy, which is very different from what I'm
| addressing here, I think the basic idea of value still applies.
| It's important to pay for shit sometimes. Forget the ethics of
| supporting your peers and just think about how it'll get you
| better quality, custom work.
|
| Open-source is awesome, and I totally support anyone fighting
| that fight, but this kind of work is pretty clearly aimed at
| startups trying to penny-pinch their way into the brand signaling
| and associations afforded by adopting the corporate memphis look.
| Maybe that's an unfair read, but I can't remember the last time I
| saw an unfunded open-source project trying to look like every VC-
| backed lifestyle app that launched over the last six years.
|
| On a particularly bad day, I can't help but feel like this kind
| of project is leading toward the centralization of art as a
| whole. It's undeniably stagnating commercial artistry.
|
| Sincerely,
|
| Someone who is still butthurt about Squarespace, et al. killing
| off small and solo web design/dev shops.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Solo web design/dev is an industry that appeared out of
| nowhere, filled a massive void for a while, and that vacuum is
| collapsing in on itself with Squarespace and efforts like this
| one as the once-impenetrable field becomes commonplace.
|
| But Ikea and custom carpenters coexist. Tailors/seamstresses
| and Macy's coexist. Programmers and designers will have to
| learn to live in a world where Squarespace and Wordpress are
| accessible enough that a startup or small business can hack
| something together that's good enough for a while without
| employing an artist.
|
| The industry won't go away completely, but the fraction if it
| which can be replaced by cheap or free mass-produced/general-
| purpose products will be.
| inasmuch wrote:
| For sure. It's all the inevitable march toward
| democratization of tooling, skills, etc.
|
| As with all probably-net-positive-progress, though, some
| losses are both necessary and worth lamenting.
| Spivak wrote:
| Or ya know, since all these sites want basically the same look
| you could start a community illustration library the sources
| contributions from the body of companies that want this kind of
| look to everyone involved's mutual benefit.
|
| What value are you gaining by having 20 companies pay 20
| designers to make the same generic uninspired designs because
| the clients want it to "look like $every_other_tech_company.?"
| inasmuch wrote:
| Haha, not a bad idea!
|
| > What value are you gaining by having 20 companies pay 20
| designers to make the same generic uninspired designs because
| the clients want it to "look like
| $every_other_tech_company.?"
|
| You're employing people, which has some value to an
| ostensibly equitable society (lord knows most jobs are very
| similar and _could_ be streamlined, consolidated, etc.), but
| yeah, I 'm in agreement that it's a pretty crap situation
| beyond that.
|
| Which is part of my problem with stuff like this--it
| encourages and embraces that homogenization. Set aside
| compensation, value, etc., and I'm just sick of seeing the
| same shit on every website and want to dissuade people from
| making more of what we already have in excess.
| lancesells wrote:
| For me these type of illustrations are the equivalent of
| using a really bad stock photo to get your message across
| on your website.
|
| While I appreciate people putting their work out there
| these illustrations are poorly done.
| inasmuch wrote:
| Yeah, it's one of those things where it's not a big deal
| if the audience sees it for what it is, because in that
| case, the company is getting out of it what they put into
| it.
|
| What sucks is when people are so conditioned to expect a
| particular aesthetic or asset class (as with corporate
| memphis) that they just ignore it anyway, effectively
| justifying going the cheap route. "If our customers don't
| care about our illustrations anyway, why would we pay for
| custom ones?" If your illustrations don't matter, why are
| you using any in the first place?
|
| > "really bad stock photo"
|
| Ironically, really bad stock photos usually come with a
| licensing fee.
| egypturnash wrote:
| I regret that I can only upvote this once. Art is my job and I
| feel much the same way. I have managed to find a set of clients
| whose desires are better met by custom art with a distinct
| personal style but, y'know, it'd be nice if "shitting out some
| Corporate Memphis at a price point appropriate to a startup
| sitting on piles of VC money" was an option for me and a bunch
| of other illustrators too. We got bills to pay.
| inasmuch wrote:
| For real. I'm glad to hear you've managed to carve out a
| niche!
| [deleted]
| blurker wrote:
| I'm curious, do you feel this way about open source software as
| well? Does it cheapen the value of being a developer? If not,
| why do you think art is different and why is open source art a
| bad thing?
| inasmuch wrote:
| I love and highly value open-source software. I try to donate
| to the creators of every piece of it I use, and make a rule
| of it if I intend to use it commercially. I admire open-
| source developers and hope for all of them to make a great
| living doing what they do, regardless of whether they
| themselves want that.
|
| That said, yes, I think it's undeniable that offering one's
| work for free decreases its value in the market. Is that
| inherently bad? Certainly not, but it does make it harder to
| make a living doing it. Devs are doing okay right now because
| of how things are going--illustrators, not so much.
|
| Projects like this rub me the wrong way for two reasons:
|
| 1. I've personally lost several contracts to people who
| charged very little or nothing for the (oftentimes very good)
| work they do for well-funded, plenty-capable-of-paying-fair-
| wages companies. I fully recognize this is just sour grapes,
| but hey, I'm eatin' 'em. Wouldn't you be frustrated to lose
| work to someone offering to do it for free for a client who
| intended to get rich using it?
|
| 2. Illustrations like these are, these days, intrinsically
| commercial and aimed at customer acquisition for businesses.
| These are for marketing; for raking in money. They aren't
| being presented as (though I concede they could be used as)
| jumping off points for artistic exploration or further
| creative development. I recognize others may not agree with
| me here, but that makes them somewhat antithetical to the
| open-source ... cause? attitude? whatever.
|
| A possible third, but more loosey-goosey point is that
| because the effectiveness and quality of illustration is much
| more subjective and difficult to measure than software:
|
| Reasonably efficient functionality seems to be a satisfactory
| baseline for most people evaluating software, so that gives
| them a way to make a rudimentary cost analysis on it. A free,
| open-source search tool is great if what you need is a search
| tool, but if you need a membership management system, you
| can't just throw the free search tool on your site and call
| it good.
|
| With illustration, however, 'screen that vaguely resembles a
| dashboard', or 'people in a meeting', or 'someone walking
| through a park' can all theoretically be used to visually
| communicate countless different service offerings or brand
| principles (which is precisely what makes these libraries so
| popular and effective), especially if you don't have a tuned
| or critical eye, or simply don't have much incentive to care
| about being more precise. It's therefor much more possible
| and more likely that a company can go years making tons of
| money without ever paying a penny for illustrations, despite
| those illustrations potentially being of great value to them.
| Which, yeah, bravo for them, I guess? But that sucks for
| illustrators.
| blurker wrote:
| I appreciate your polite and thoughtful response :) That
| being said, I don't really feel convinced that there is a
| difference. I think that just as open source software
| doesn't solve every need, the same goes with art and there
| will always be value for the people who can create original
| work and there will always be people who don't value that.
| Honestly, it sounds like a bullet dodged if you lost a
| contract to a client who thinks that way. They probably
| still wouldn't value you very highly and would likely be a
| bad client. That's my philosophy for freelance work. I feel
| like it's a common problem across industries. If what you
| do actually is more valuable than something available for
| free, it is no threat. Fundamentally someone will need your
| service if they can't actually get it for free. The people
| who think the free substitutes are better will probably
| learn that the hard way and there are others out there who
| will know better. And if what you do is not more valuable,
| then I think it's not a bad thing that you don't get paid,
| because you should make money for providing value. You
| gotta keep yourself marketable with valuable skills.
| inasmuch wrote:
| For sure--these are all valid points.
|
| I think you might just be a bit more optimistic than I
| am, as I myself am not convinced that quality (by non-
| monetary measurements) will win (or even survive) in the
| end D:.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I would say open source creates new opportunities for
| developers. Instead of paying a developer to implement their
| own JS view library and then use it to solve a problem, you
| hire the developer to use React to solve 2 problems.
|
| That said there is an aspect of AWS (etc.) making money off
| the back off the efforts of certain open source projects.
|
| Stock illustrations on the other hand are a direct
| replacement for artist's work. If I find a logo online, I
| don't need to pay someone to design a logo.
| swyx wrote:
| this comes up every single time someone shares their work for
| free. look, i have some sympathy for you, and yes it leads to
| devaluing some work by people who don't value your work, but
| people are going to keep doing it for exposure, you don't have
| the power to stop them, so accept that this is a thing and find
| the people who DO value your work. you have a powerful, awesome
| skill that I'd kill to have. I hope you realize how prized you
| are by the people that can't do what you do.
| inasmuch wrote:
| You're right--I don't have the power to stop them, and thank
| goodness for that! I've certainly considered whipping up my
| own illustration library and selling it in packages. It's
| just smart business, like selling typeface licenses instead
| of only offering custom treatments.
|
| I accept that this is how things are, but I also think it's
| okay to be unhappy about it :].
|
| And like anyone, I do appreciate the appreciation of others
| who appreciate my skillset and offering. But also like
| anyone, I can't help but wish more people did!
| emadabdulrahim wrote:
| This is great.
|
| Here's a tip from a designer and engineer by craft. If you want
| your website or app to have a great design, then either use high-
| quality images, icons, illustrations, etc, or don't at all.
|
| This might sound unwarranted, but it's true. Your typography
| should be great, and so should your media assets. This is what
| makes up most content on any website.
|
| See this for yourself by visiting Microsoft[0] and Apple[1]
| websites for example. Compare the quality of their product shots,
| images, and illustrations, if any. See how it makes or breaks the
| design of the whole site.
|
| Ofc there's a lot more to design than typography and media
| assets.
|
| [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/?ql=2
|
| [1] https://apple.com
| bitwize wrote:
| Neat.
|
| The illustrations are not nearly as cringey as the Alegria style
| ones I see nearly everywhere now. More reminiscent of 90s
| corporate Memphis. Getting Micrografx Designer flashbacks.
| FunnyLookinHat wrote:
| This is great! Thank you for sharing.
|
| But... is anyone else growing tired of the sales-pitch we're all
| using? And do any of us find it valuable for ourselves when we
| read them? We've trained ourselves (collectively, as an industry)
| to expect a specific type of one-page: hero image, call-out-
| message with CTA, then abstract illustrations combined with text
| about how great something is. I don't know what I want in it's
| place (let's be honest, I'm clearly no marketing expert!), but
| what we've landed on has an incredibly bad signal:noise ratio.
| 4ec0755f5522 wrote:
| I hate it without realizing how much I hate it, and now that
| you've pointed it out in such simple, concrete terms I'm not
| going to be able to stop seeing it everywhere.
| blurker wrote:
| For me, sort of yes but also no. It's kind've a wash actually.
| As you pointed out, this type of design is so common it doesn't
| really make the site bad or good, just "normal." On the other
| hand, poorly done designs set off red flags. So if you aren't
| capable of producing something original, it's probably best to
| go with this.
|
| So I'd say it's a safe way to make an acceptable site. But I
| definitely prefer a site that is well-designed and not this
| generic stuff that is the trend. I agree, it's a bad
| signal:noise ratio and it also gives me a bit of an icky
| corporate vibe. /shrug
| nerdponx wrote:
| Personally I take it as a good sign if an application has an
| "ugly" information-dense website.
| indigochill wrote:
| > is anyone else growing tired of the sales-pitch we're all
| using?
|
| Not growing, been there for years. Another common annoyance is
| when they have a pricing page that ultimately asks you to
| schedule a phone call with their salespeople (not applicable
| here, but a common sales pattern for these sorts of things).
|
| > I don't know what I want in it's place
|
| The core of the problem IMO is that so much of these sorts of
| pages are filled with fluff that doesn't communicate very well
| about the product (or maybe it does, but not at a level that I
| will ever engage with, like case studies). One solution in some
| cases is to put a video demo of the product front and center.
|
| Look at https://about.gitlab.com/ for example. To some extent
| it's following the same pattern, but when you load the page the
| first thing you see is a pair of buttons. Get a free trial or
| watch a video demo. I'm annoyed they make it so hard to find
| their FOSS Community Edition (IMO that's a far better "free
| trial" than the one you have to sign up for), but just judging
| the landing page, the first thing you see is a CTA to get more
| information. The OP's page's first visual doesn't have that.
| You actually can't even find an actionable link until you've
| scrolled all the way to the bottom (if we ignore the top bar).
|
| Another annoyance of mine is the marketing cheapening of words
| like "awesome" and "amazing", which is in full force in OP. In
| marketing copy (and in common vernacular among some people)
| they're just white noise. It's a fun exercise to rewrite
| marketing copy with all the adjectives removed.
|
| Marketing criticism aside, though, I like the interactive
| element on OP. It's unnecessary, but cute.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I think we're going to see the pendulum swing in the other
| direction relatively soon with this type of aesthetic, mainly
| because it's so transparently inauthentic and sterile. It's
| almost turned into a parody of itself.
| [deleted]
| tobr wrote:
| Why does the "Calendar Image Illustration" have six-day weeks?
|
| https://iradesign.io/illustrations/backgrounds
| kingcharles wrote:
| The same reason cartoon characters have three fingers.
| mig39 wrote:
| Looks like they just start on Sunday, which is a different
| colour.
| tobr wrote:
| They helpfully put numbers in that suggest that's not at all
| what's going on.
| dEnigma wrote:
| Well, it also seems to have only 24 days. So maybe it's an
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent_calendar
| paradite wrote:
| I think it's a fine _illustration_ of the concept of calendar?
| tobr wrote:
| For a tiny icon it would have been a reasonable compromise in
| interest of readability at low resolution, but here it just
| comes across as a sloppy mistake.
| [deleted]
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| Why someone should go to such lengths in order to make someone
| money for free? Have companies just become a leech on public with
| tax evasion and discount and private?
| theraido wrote:
| <sarcasm>No obviously not, to evade taxes is to standup against
| communism! </sarcasm>
| [deleted]
| simonw wrote:
| Giving something away for free is an extremely effective way of
| promoting your other paid projects.
|
| In this case the project helps get https://www.creative-
| tim.com/ in front of a lot more people.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| You can give it for free to individuals or place it on
| behance, and not just up for use for companies, but
| regardless of the specific site, I feel like it's being
| frustrating to see companies forgetting the social value of
| letting currency go around, and always asking for freebies,
| bailouts, tax discounts, laying off people to hire cheap
| labour or with lesser rights, I am not sure I am generalising
| it's just that its become a very huge weight on my
| productivity, I feel like labour is not valued anymore is not
| appreciated anymore and the only god has become the profit
| and dividends, and it's affecting my productivity and ability
| to trust people I work with, I am at my third job changed
| within a year and I started 2 weeks ago, and I already see
| conversation about hiring part of the team in Ukraine cuz its
| free and am almost going to send a resignation letter, other
| than unappreciated I am starting to feel dirty every time I
| am at a company.. I guess my post was just part of a deeper
| frustration that I am going through at the moment and which I
| can't see the end of
| zild3d wrote:
| Couldn't you say the same about most open source software?
| Majestic121 wrote:
| Some people like to be useful in general.
|
| Others enjoy their craft, do it for fun, and make it available
| to the public in a nice way.
|
| Another reason could be that it also provides advertisement for
| the person providing the work.
|
| The 'money for free' angle is very strange to me : a lot of
| things provide value, it's not a bad thing to provide something
| for free, even if companies can use it as well.
| tsumnia wrote:
| As someone who built a free educational platform - I do it
| because I want my students to have quality learning without
| feeding into the $300 textbook industry. I'm funded through my
| career, so it is a passion project. I wanted to build the
| thing, so I did. I'm not interested in taking on the
| responsibilities for making it a profitable company.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| So yeah my point was not about private to help other people
| or kids, it's the freebies toward companies who do stuff for
| a profit and are paid, and take free stuff, it's a bit less
| disgusting than restaurants who expect people to tip their
| staff for wage
| npteljes wrote:
| >Why free?
|
| Surely you don't do everything for monetary compensation?
| Maintaining a contact, helping a friend move, having a guest,
| teaching someone something, people do all sorts of stuff for
| free. Just because feel like it, inclined to the thing itself,
| promoting their other work, wanting to make the world a better
| place. Ruin others' similar efforts, to emerge as a monopoly
| and excercise larger control[0]. There's plenty of reasons.
|
| [0] https://www.gwern.net/Complement
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| I would say that I think you missed the part where I wrote
| "Why someone should go to such lengths in order to make
| someone money for free?"
|
| To recap, I would help a friend move, because he is.. well,
| my friend? I have a guest... because I invited him and he is
| not going to take the food I prepared to sell it outside my
| house? And you can of course promote your work, people have
| been doing that since ever, you can do that with also
| licenses where people can see but not sell
|
| But yeah I think I didn't put enough emphasis at this point
| on "Why someone should go to such lengths in order to make
| someone money for free?" where the important idea is "To make
| someone money"
| npteljes wrote:
| Yes you're right, I missed that. To be frank, this changes
| my argument completely. It's also the reason why, when
| talking about open source, I dislike the MIT and other such
| permissive licenses, and prefer the GPL world. Because it
| seems like that the GNU people are on the same side
| regarding this argument. Even then, this license permits
| for that making someone else richer scenario, but at least
| not at the complete expense of the original author.
| swyx wrote:
| I collect a repo of all these free illo projects here!
| https://github.com/sw-yx/spark-joy#illustrations
| V__ wrote:
| That's amazing. Thanks you for putting this together.
| DecayingOrganic wrote:
| I'd also recommend
| https://www.evernote.design/categories/illustrations which
| besides illustrations it also has categories such as free
| icons, design systems, sounds, and so on.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Unreal! How did I never find this before?
|
| Your ToC needs a second (sub) level though! I'll sit there and
| craft the markup for it if you want.
| reedciccio wrote:
| The licensing terms don't seem compatible with open source.
| They're just free (gratis) for many uses though.
| murtaza_alexa wrote:
| You can use the illustrations as you want.
|
| The paragraph from our license which says that you can't use
| products to create templates, and so on, applies to our
| templates (containing code), not illustrations.
| nick238 wrote:
| That's not how the MIT license works though. It says:
| "Permission is hereby granted, [...] without restriction,
| including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify,
| merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of
| the Software"
| IanCal wrote:
| I think there are two things though, the illustrations and
| templates. They are claiming _one_ of those is open source.
| Not both.
| reedciccio wrote:
| I appreciate the response. As others have noted though, the
| licensing terms are very hard to parse. Have you considered
| using one of the Creative Commons licenses for the artwork,
| with commonly used software licenses for the software pieces?
| victorbstan wrote:
| Where's clippy?
| fleddr wrote:
| The 2022 Web Design starter kit: - Stripe-like
| header. - 3 key benefits side by side. -
| Unsubstantiated sponsors and awards list. - Information
| density: 20 words per viewport height. - Weirdly shaped
| human pudding figures. - Wavy curve backgrounds because we
| can. - Card-based design philosophy, formerly known as
| "boxes".
| jgstyle wrote:
| Not to forget the big cookie banner
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-14 23:00 UTC)