undefined | Better HN

0 pointsreidrac13y ago0 comments

Yes, it's a good idea and I like it too. It's OSS but you may pay for the convenience of getting the app perfectly packaged for your OS.

Other OSS projects use that model (I can think of Todo.txt Android app, for example).

But I'm not sure that it works exactly like "can you build it? It's free if you don't want to pay for it". OSS is about distribution. Anybody can build your app and distribute it legally (in this case Hacky is LGPL, it wouldn't be too difficult to comply with the license), even do it for a fee.

It's more paying for "the extras" straight to the developers. Call it support, iTunes, packaging, or just making things easier for people that don't want or don't have the time to get the hands dirty.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

DeepDuh13y ago· 1 in thread

I like the model too and you got me thinking. Is there any standard licence model where you allow people to have and use the source but not to redistribute it "as is"?

micampe13y ago

That sounds like what Microsoft did (and got slammed for) with their Shared Source license.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse