[HN Gopher] Datastar response to allegations
___________________________________________________________________
Datastar response to allegations
Author : alvaroflm
Score : 50 points
Date : 2025-10-11 21:55 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (data-star.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (data-star.dev)
| dinkleberg wrote:
| The amount of front page space they've taken over the past few
| days is impressive.
| foofoo12 wrote:
| All this fuss because there was no pricing link on the front DS
| page. There still isn't.
|
| There's nothing wrong with charging for your work, but it's
| common courtesy to be clear about pricing.
| BoredPositron wrote:
| Discoverability is key if you charge for certain features.
| Placing it in references is a bit odd.
| infamia wrote:
| They think most folks should avoid Pro (it is just convenience
| fluff and some potential anti-patterns). Putting it on the
| front page would cause more harm than good?
| scuff3d wrote:
| From what I can tell this seems like a classic example of devs
| just not communicating. On mobile I don't see any mention of a
| "Pro" option on the front page, and I don't see any "essays"
| about it either. Perhaps its buried in one of the essays, or
| maybe it's been communicated elsewhere, but if you're planning to
| launch a paid service around an open source app it's really a
| good idea to communicate the intent clearly BEFORE it's launched.
| If it just comes out of no where it feels to the community like
| they're getting rug pulled. On top of that terms like "Pro" and
| "Premium" and "Plus" have been ruined by predatory subscription
| models. Similar thing happened to Hyperland a while back and I
| think a lot has to do with the language used.
|
| That said, the terms seem perfectly reasonable, and a life long
| license is great. Though 300 dollars is going to cause sticker
| shock to a solo dev I think.
|
| Edit:
|
| To the devs I would recommended adding something like "All
| features of Datastar are free and open source. If you would like
| to support us consider donating or purchasing a lifetime license
| for access to <insert stuff here>", to the home page, maybe under
| the intro to the project" And drop the "Pro" branding.
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| "Allegations" implies criminal wrongdoing.
|
| "Response to entitled grumpy people" is probably more the mark.
|
| I would not tar my own project with the word "allegation" cause
| now you sound like a crim.
| antonvs wrote:
| I would have said "response to misunderstandings".
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I think the suggested alternative is a considerably less
| professional way for one to conduct themselves.
| andersmurphy wrote:
| This really has to stop. But since you're here (built with
| datastar):
|
| https://checkboxes.andersmurphy.com/?x=0&y=29878
| sgarland wrote:
| I hadn't heard about Datastar until this brouhaha started, but
| having read everything, I've come to the conclusion that many
| people are entitled primadonnas.
|
| I really do not understand the outrage. Nothing has been taken
| away, it hasn't been relicensed, etc. I saw someone complaining
| that extracting the commit prior to the change was "an arcane git
| command." Are you serious? If you can't figure out how to get the
| parent of a given commit, I have no idea how you stay employed in
| tech.
|
| I applaud the library author for making some money while also not
| rug-pulling. I personally think the license should be more
| copyleft, but if anything, the fact that it isn't should negate
| anyone's complaints.
|
| It's almost as if there is a disturbingly large percentage of the
| community that has no idea how to code, doesn't have the drive to
| learn - much less produce something original and market it - and
| just fakes it by vibe-coding on top of libraries and frameworks.
| stepbeek wrote:
| Reminds me of the Rich Hickey post Open Source is Not About You.
|
| https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...
| rovr138 wrote:
| > For v1, we moved a handful of convenience plugins into Datastar
| Pro.
|
| and
|
| > Nothing you can build was taken from you; we set a support
| boundary
|
| If it was available on core, it was supported by them. If they
| moved it to Pro, isn't still supported by them?
|
| Not sure what the 'support boundary' is. If they didn't want to
| provide official support for it, wasn't 'core' the better
| solution for them anyway? Wouldn't pay require them to officially
| support it?
|
| ----
|
| The ability to build is separate from the convenience of
| prebuilt. It is paywalling things. This is like saying, 'you can
| send electrical pulses to your computer, no need for an OS or
| tooling'.
|
| If everything is achievable through the same api, then the
| plugins wouldn't do anything. If they simplify things, then do
| they do add something, convenience. This is what plugins do,
| which they say aren't needed? But if they're not needed, what's
| Pro for?
|
| Yes, it's a 501c3... it's still commercial since they're
| selling...
|
| If it's stable, no v2, plugins aren't needed, it's a 501c3,
| there's no shares, equity... what's the point of Pro? "The goal
| is to fund the work and draw a clear support boundary," What are
| they funding?
|
| By adding a Pro subscription, what's the incentive to work on
| core?
|
| ---
|
| As an outsider it just looks as a way to justify Pro. But it's
| not a technical explanation or explains the maintenance policy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-11 23:00 UTC)