Hacker News Reader

Comment by rapnie | Hacker News Reader

> Not OSS (yet)

Does the "yet" infer that you do intend to open source the baseline product, and then have paid plugins?

That's correct. The intention IS to open source.

Voiden evolved from an internal tool where the team bundled a lot of features into the core product. Currently separating certain things into plugins. By the time that is done, and some community adoption/engagement is happening, the tool will be open-sourced.

As per the plugins, that's right. Some of the plugins can/will be monetized - but that's the discretion of the plugin developers. We won't be charging for any plugins that we build, unless they have an operational cost for us.

I'd like to put an emphasis that the biggest part of 'When Did API Tooling Become a Circus' is the idea that you can close source, lock down, and enshittify dev tools.

Oh, 100%. And I'm all for FOSS and an adapter architecture approach (no lock-ins of any kind). Team is aware of it, CTO wants it, so opening the core is happening. I've got no reason not to believe them. Ofc, can't expect a stranger to believe me either. The fact that you can build your own plugins on top of the core, even before open-sourcing it, should be a sign that it's about giving you control, not locking you in on anything. But yeah, actually making it OSS will make that trust grow much easier.

I hold no judgement here, as someone who has only ever built software for profit but if the intention is to make it OSS, why not start that way? For many, OSS is a core feature, and as you know, many devs have been burned by postman, insomnia, etc.

To the best of my understanding, it is exactly what I wrote in the parent comment. It's the fact that the core lacks bits developed in the internal tool but not yet unglued from what will go in the plugins section.

It's not unheard of. For instance, I got another team and devtool I work with, non-related to the API niche, and they are going open source mid-next week. Some teams want to build the core their way, some want to see if it will catch traction before committing to support an entire community and contributions, some have got something else going on, some actually ARE shady and talk OSS for clout, etc.

It would probably imply it

Being open source is a feature, and I have often seen marketing imply this and when pressed returning a "we are considering it", while remaining proprietary. I have also seen "at this early stage the core is still minimal", and then staying like that for the free version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com