[HN Gopher] Making the Kinopio source code public
___________________________________________________________________
Making the Kinopio source code public
Author : bpierre
Score : 212 points
Date : 2024-06-27 14:32 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (pketh.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (pketh.org)
| humdrum wrote:
| > By contrast, delivering software is more like delivering a
| gooey crying baby. It's alive. Squirming, growing, and changing
| because the technologies it relies on do too. Physical materials
| rarely change, but web browsers, operating systems, and servers
| sure do.
|
| Love this
| pketh wrote:
| haha thanks!
| martingxx wrote:
| The title says "open source", but the license says otherwise.
| dvdkon wrote:
| Sorry to be pedantic, but since the licence forbids commercial
| use, the software isn't open source, but rather just source-
| available.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| Hardly pendantic to point out the obvious truth. Headline is a
| lie
| Bjorkbat wrote:
| To be fair, I myself was ignorant of the difference between
| open-source and source-available. This whole time I thought
| releasing the source code under a license that restricts
| commercial use was just as open-source as releasing something
| with an MIT license.
|
| Good to know I suppose.
| opan wrote:
| The Four Freedoms of free software or the Open Source
| Definition may clear things up, for those who haven't read
| them. You can sell CDs with Emacs on them!
| kazinator wrote:
| It is just as open source. If the source is available, you
| can open it in an editor. There you go: open source.
|
| It's just not Open Source according to the OSI people who
| believe they own the term. They do not hold a trademark on
| the term.
|
| https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-
| the-t...
|
| The term "open" has been used as a weasel words in the
| industry before OSI and "open source".
|
| Off the top of my head: "The Open Group", "Open Software
| Foundation", "X/Open", "Open Look", "OpenStep", "OpenGL",
| "OpenMax", "OpenType", ...
|
| It's best to use more specific terms like "BSD licensed",
| "MIT licensed" or "Copyleft".
|
| Or FOSS. "FOSS" is a thing because open source isn't
| necessarily free due to the conflation with source-
| available.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Not having read the license, for me as a private person this is
| more than source available no?
| klysm wrote:
| Sure, but that is not the same as open source
| ilc wrote:
| It isn't pedantic. It is the truth.
|
| I personally won't touch non-commercial products. Mainly
| because I never know if what I am doing is commercial. If I'm
| doing open source work, but not getting paid, but there's a
| company involved.
|
| Think about improving the keyboard you are using's firmware...
| Now what happens if that company is grateful and sends you a
| prototype of the next board to help them out. You are now
| getting something. Is it commercial?
|
| Why the fuck do I want to think about this. I don't. So I just
| don't use this type of software, and I encourage others to
| think of commercial as broadly as possible, when considering
| using it.
|
| I use all types of licenses including straight up commercial.
|
| But I want to be clear: Their code, their right to license it.
| I respect that right. And that is why I won't use it.
| opan wrote:
| I strongly agree with this. You just don't have to worry if
| it's actually free software. You can use vim and emacs at
| home or at work. You don't need to suddenly pay for a
| professional license or risk getting into trouble. It's just
| easier to stick to free (as in freedom) software for this
| reason. You can do what you want, where you want, no
| nonsense.
| ilc wrote:
| In general, but sometimes commercial software can make life
| better.
|
| I use the JetBrains IDEs, I have no issue paying for them,
| I can install them on as many machines as I need etc.
|
| If I make more FOSS, by using a non FOSS tool, it is worth
| it to me.
|
| I value clarity of licensing above all. The non-commercial,
| can't use it in military applications or can't use it to
| save puppies ware is the stuff I really hate.
|
| Do I prefer FOSS, yes, do I try to cut back over to emacs
| and neovim every so often, yeah. Do I stay where I am for
| now, so I can be more productive... Yeah.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| I have tried to use JetBrains IDEs a few times because I
| hear they are great and more productive, but I find that
| I don't know them well enough to be more productive in
| them... so I think to myself "do I really want to invest
| the time to learn this tool if it could be made
| unavailable to me in the future". To be fair to
| JetBrains, once you buy a license, you always own the
| license to the last version while you had a subscription,
| so you are never really cut off from using the old
| version... however, I also prefer to be able to fork and
| continue to evolve my tools. So yeah, JetBrains has one
| of the best proprietary software release models I have
| ever seen. I just haven't ever been able to justify
| jumping in when I am already used to the open source
| alternatives. All the praise to Jetbrains though, they
| have a great model and they really support a lot of open
| source development too!
| pketh wrote:
| thanks for letting me know, I've changed the title of the post
| to "Making the Kinopio Source Code Available"
| whit537 wrote:
| You might be interested in fair.io, launching next month. We
| ran into a similar problem a year ago that ended up stirring
| up a lot of drama, so we are now promoting the term Fair
| Source instead of Open Source.
|
| Fair Source: https://fair.io/
|
| Our drama: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36971490
|
| Lots more context:
| https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-historical-
| case-f...
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| I wish you well but the name is unintuitive (Why fair? Is
| there an unfair source?) and the definition1 is vague.
|
| 1. Fair Source is software that is safe for companies to
| share and developers to use. It's best for a company's core
| products, not shared infrastructure.
| thayne wrote:
| I agree that we need a new term for licenses that are
| between traditional "source available" where the source
| code is published, but the license restricts any real
| usage, and fully open source.
|
| However, I don't like the name "fair source". It implies
| that open source is somehow unfair, which I don't think is
| fair.
|
| I see where the name comes from, since it is trying to be
| more "fair" to the creating company by preventing another
| company from building a product without putting any work or
| money into it. But compressing that nuance into the word
| "fair" is IMO potentially confusing.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Creating a new term to describe this licening model may be
| a good idea... but it appears that that the linked website
| has no definition for what the term is supposed to mean
| yet? Is that something you intend to remedy in the future
| as a definition is decided upon?
|
| I would also echo other commentators that the name may lead
| to a belief that you are implying that other software
| models aren't fair. If that is not your intent, then adding
| an explanation of it on the website may be a good idea, so
| that others will know why the name "fair" was chosen and
| how it is meant to be interpreted in relation to the other
| licensing models.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| We definitely need a term, more accurate than source-available,
| that describes software whose usage and improvements can only
| orbit in non-commercial space.
|
| For non-software creative works, we have Creative Commons
| NonCommercial licenses.
| whit537 wrote:
| Yes! We aim to launch https://fair.io/ next month to promote
| the term Fair Source for this purpose. Early feedback is
| guardedly positive, e.g., ESR's take was "very clever."
|
| https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-historical-
| case-f...
| brunoqc wrote:
| Why? We all know what "source available" mean and that it's
| not really open-source.
| card_zero wrote:
| Somehow you've all established this phrase with the
| adjective after the noun. I guess it's stuck like that now.
| "This software is source-available" as in "this chicken is
| range-free".
| narism wrote:
| AKA the postpositive adjective. I do wish they had gone
| with Available Source Software for the acronym
| possibilities.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Because you can
|
| 1. Release the source only for the purpose of studying it.
| Say some scientific software library's source available so
| you can check the details of the algorithm.
|
| 2. Release the source, and allow you to make improvements
| to it, but not give any further distribution rights.
|
| 3. Release the source, and allow non-commercial users to
| improve the source and distribute those improvements to
| other non-commercial users.
|
| 4. Release under some dual license.
|
| 5. Release under certified Open Source licenses.
|
| I would say, most people would only label 1 or 2 as "source
| available". Over the past few years 3 and 4 are becoming
| more popular (for whatever reasons - good or bad). So 3
| should have a name as well.
| zem wrote:
| there was another excellent one i saw on HN a few months
| ago - the game "even the ocean" was open sourced to a
| great extent, somewhere between 3 and 4 on your list.
| repeating my comment about it:
|
| honestly, i wish the spirit behind that license were
| easier to formalise and publish - it roughly says "look,
| this is a game i made and am selling, and i don't want
| people taking this repo and just cloning the game for
| free. but we are a community of people making games, and
| i would love to provide the code and other assets as
| building blocks that will let other people make their own
| games more easily."
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382
| josephcsible wrote:
| 3 is absolutely only "source available". For 4, if either
| of the licenses are open source, then the overall thing
| is too, but otherwise it's also only "source available".
| cxr wrote:
| > We have definitely need a term, more accurate than source-
| available
|
| I think you mean more marketable. "Source available" is
| extremely accurate and descriptive. It's not as sexy, though,
| and that's the real reason people in favor of broadening what
| "open source" means don't like to use the available
| alternatives that actually apply. They want the shine of
| "open source" without having to meet the criteria. This isn't
| a problem of language. It's a problem of a group motivated by
| self-interests wanting something that is directly at odds
| with what their marks want. Not unlike, for example, used car
| dealers wanting to put their ads in the "for sale by owner"
| section and being unhappy about being excluded because it
| means because of all the people who will only see ads by
| folks who aren't dealers, when _that 's the whole point_. See
| also: men who can't hit on women in spaces where men aren't
| allowed.
| m463 wrote:
| here's a better explanation than I could put in a comment:
|
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
| endisneigh wrote:
| 1. Not technically open source since you can't use for
| commercial, but ignoring the pedantry.
|
| 2. You're clearly worried about the commercial risk, why even do
| it? You have a section on this but even after reading - seems
| like a non answer.
| pketh wrote:
| > The big benefit of open source for me is that it's another
| way to share the work that goes into Kinopio.
| flobosg wrote:
| I like how the author used Kinopio for his "Uses This" interview:
| https://usesthis.com/interviews/pirijan/
|
| And I instantly recognized that artwork from Hiro Isono: _Seiken
| Densetsu 3_!
| https://archive.org/details/seikendensetsu3sfchiresscans/Sei...
| rchaud wrote:
| Nice to see that the screenshots have full alt text
| transcriptions of the text in the image.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| Also, "Kinopio" is the Japanese name for the Mario character
| that the English-speaking world knows as Toad.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Another cool fact is that Bowser is the president of Nintendo
| of America. Doug Bowser.
| poetril wrote:
| Oh wow I had no idea he cofounded Glitch. Also very cool use of
| his product for the interview
| runjake wrote:
| For others who have no idea what Kinopio is:
|
| Kinopio is "a spatial thinking canvas for your new ideas and hard
| problems".
|
| https://kinopio.club/hello-kinopio-m6UmPzsVTQUcarM6ROPsu
|
| It's not my kinda thing, but very neat!
| brianzelip wrote:
| Here's a great podcast episode with the Kinopio author that also
| touches on the design of Glitch.com and more, very informing!
| https://www.localfirst.fm/8
| caseyf wrote:
| I love that Glitch and Kinopio look like they were designed by
| someone with their own personal style/way of doing UI. Contrast
| with nearly everything else on the web.
| anderber wrote:
| I love Kinopio and I really appreciate being able to look around
| the code and perhaps even help make it better. Hopefully, this
| will spur innovations and new updates.
| pketh wrote:
| I'm looking forward to it too
| whalesalad wrote:
| I've been following this project for a while - very excited to
| see this and even more excited that it is Vue!
| pketh wrote:
| I'm a big vue fan, it's a great oss success story and feels
| good not to use any facebook tech
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _The Hybrid Architecture of Kinopio for iOS_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37404820 - Sept 2023 (1
| comment)
|
| _Kinopio_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31460626 - May
| 2022 (141 comments)
|
| _Kinopio_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29726044 - Dec
| 2021 (2 comments)
|
| _Show HN: Kinopio.club - visual thinking, brainstorming tool_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24132631 - Aug 2020 (64
| comments)
| ta988 wrote:
| Can you update the title of the post? The original article
| doesn't say opensource anymore.
| dang wrote:
| Yes. Thanks!
| wcerfgba wrote:
| I don't use Kinopio for everything, but when I need to arrange
| ideas in a 2D way and think about webs of relationships, it's
| been an amazing addition to my set of "tools for thought". Thank
| you for all of your work on it <3
| pketh wrote:
| You're very welcome :)
| Vegenoid wrote:
| I've never been interested in this canvas/corkboard kind of
| software, and I'd never heard of Kinopio, but it's so nice that
| I'm trying to come up with a reason to use it.
| jeswin wrote:
| > On the eve of it's 5th anniversary, I've decided to make the
| code for the kinopio-client app public.
|
| Can you clarify if the server is also open source? If not, a more
| accurate headline would be "Open Sourcing Kinopio Client"; which
| is a very different thing.
| spiffytech wrote:
| I do not see a Github repo for the server code.
|
| The client isn't actually open source, either. It's under a
| source-available license (PolyForm Noncommercial License) which
| only permits changes and distribution for enumerated non-
| commercial purposes.
| opan wrote:
| Thanks. I always read headlines like this with skepticism and
| try to find the license used right away. They score easy
| feel-good points throwing around "open source" without going
| all the way.
| square_usual wrote:
| The first image on the post says it's not.
| geenat wrote:
| What's the deal with all the anons complaining about the non-
| commercial use clause? It's one guy. There'd almost certainly be
| paid clones popping up otherwise.
|
| Pirijan is being very cool opening up the main product in the
| first place- this isn't just a supporting library or sidecar.
| thayne wrote:
| Because they are claiming that it is open source, when it
| isn't.
|
| It's great that they are making the source available, but the
| non-commercial restriction means it isn't open source, so don't
| claim that it is.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| He changed the title. The drama is over.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| The title on Hacker News hasn't been updated yet, so that
| title is still misleading. I think dang would need to edit
| the submission to reflect the new, correct post title.
| Otherwise we can still expect new comments on the fact that
| it isn't open source at all.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > What's the deal with all the anons complaining about the non-
| commercial use clause? It's one guy.
|
| It's the same reason that people would complain if a mom-and-
| pop restaurant advertised that its meals were vegan, but they
| actually contained butter.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-28 23:02 UTC)