Hacker News Reader

Most open-source projects aren't "community projects" and "betray the users" is an interesting way to phrase "tried to get people to support the project, they by and large refused, and so he made it distinctly less optional".

You're better than that, man. This stuff goes both ways.

View on HN

Well, I bought Aseprite while it was FOSS, and license was one of the reasons I chosen it instead of PyxelEdit. I wound't say I feel betrayed... more like disappointed.

Don't get me wrong--I bought it, too. But I'm not disappointed in the author. I am disappointed in the userbase that wouldn't put up to make it viable. Like I said, this stuff is a two-way street.

(This is also why I, for a project I'm about to release, am doing an OSS/commercial split with higher-end features not part of the OSS version. But my software is designed for enterprise use, and they're used to paying for things.)

People have contributed to the project under the original license terms. It's absolutely a betrayal to the contributors (and possibly illegal, requiring consent) to change the license terms from under their feet.

Did the community contributors assigned the copyright of their work to the original maintainer?

Yes, original Aseprite contributors sign CLA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com