LibreSprite is an open source program for creating and animating your sprites
libresprite.github.io
libresprite.github.io
Since Aseprite has come a long way since then, interested parties might want to check there instead. It's free to compile from source, or binaries are $20 on steam. (But it's not libre free - IIRC the only restriction is that you're not allowed to redistribute the source.)
It is maintained[0] fork derived from the latest GPL-licensed Aseprite.
[0] https://github.com/LibreSprite/libresprite.github.io/commits...
Just add
(aseprite.override { unfree = true; })
"Ah, an app for designing sprites? Cool, where are the screenshots? Maybe I can try the navigation? Ah, it's a single-page site, do I really need a navigation bar to jump to the individual paragraphs of text on this very short page? BTW, it's called "libre", so where's the source code? Ah, must be the GitHub icon under "social networks", riiiiight..."
Don't get me wrong, I'm a developer myself, and this looks exactly like the info page I might build for a project - it's a nice page, but it has some UX issues which you only notice if you look at it from a user's perspective.
[0] https://www.aseprite.org/ (also linked from the LibreSprite site)
The main task for LibreSprite team was to preserve GPL-licensed version of Aseprite.
Same way as LibreOffice derived from OpenOffice.
LibreSprite already ready[0] to use! ;)
Right there in on the page. The implication being that until the fork is mature, glancing at Aseprite screenshots should satisfy you. Cut the dev a little slack, this wasn't a show HN.
But whether it was planned to land on HN or not, including a screenshot on the frontpage should happen the moment the site goes live.
Overall it's been pretty good. Sometimes it slows down during tasks (a lot more than Photoshop or Clip Studio do while doing things like transforming a selection) but most of it works well. The animation features have been handy and were just simple enough to be useful.
It's just under a proprietary license.
In general, "source available" or "shared source" are terms that will lead to less confusion in situations like this.
In terms of proprietary licenses, Aseprite is very good. It's one of the very, very few proprietary software products that I allow myself to use while developing games. But calling it open source is at best going to spark some disagreement/confusion, and at worst going to spark some needless debate from people (like me) who believe that the FOSS community needs to more closely guard how those terms are used and abused online.
Note that the main Aseprite dev also doesn't use the words "open source" when describing its changed license: https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/
So, I'd say OSI is, by definition, designed to be the gatekeepers of "Open Source".
I think a bit of a myth. There's documented existing use of the term in the same context before the OSI say they came up with it, and they were denied the trademark by the USPTO because it was an existing simply descriptive term.
I can understand that position but... they tried to trademark just 'open source' - without the 'initiative' part. They were told to rod off by the USPTO because you're not allowed to do that, so it's not ok by the law, whatever you think of it.
You can go argue with every major Linux distro, the Homebrew devs, package managers, and most key Open Source advocates if you want. Get them to change their definitions and the software they accept, and then maybe you'll have a point.
But in the meantime, you shouldn't be surprised when the community lashes out at you for appropriating decades of PR and public education just because you don't like that the definition we've always used to describe ourselves doesn't fit a particular business model. OSI/GNU have authority on this subject because we the community grant them authority. We're not interested in people coming in and leeching off the goodwill of Open Source while simultaneously restricting users' rights.
We are as a community guarding our terminology because our terms have value, and OSI is the standardized, commonly understood definition that we have advocated for. If you want to call that gatekeeping, I don't care. I don't want Open Source to be like the "organic" aisle at the grocery store, I want it to mean something specific.
On some level, you have to know that the phrase Open Source has value. That's why companies want to use it. That's why they're arguing over broadening the definition and calling the OSI a gatekeeper. They want to be able to use that phrase because it has positive connotations. It's not a linguistic debate, it's a debate over being able to imply that some software is Free even when it's not.
If you think that the OSI made a mistake by picking an existing phrase, that's a totally valid criticism you can have, but as a community we're still not going to let you redefine the phrase. We've invested in this. Take your own advice and come up with a new word for these new licenses.
To put it in legalistic terms: you can face legal consequences for false advertising despite making no use of trademarked language. The court will not be interested in the etymology of the words you used, that's an academic matter, it's the modern meaning that counts.
> [The new EULA] still gives you the possibility to compile and modify the program for your own purposes, but it doesn’t allow you to redistribute Aseprite.
Fully open source licenses do not restrict the end user's freedoms in this way; rather, they generally encourage (and sometimes require) sharing source code modifications so the larger community can benefit from your work. This tends to be at odds with some commercial models (especially the "sell copies of software" model) so there's much debate about when each type of license is most appropriate.