-1

Opinion: Sync shouldn't be open source (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by iRyu@lemmy.world to c/syncforlemmy@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'll start with maybe I just don't know enough about open source. I do understand that the code is available and people can see it, make suggestions or adjustments, or essentially make their own thing using some or all of the code. I'm all for sharing things as necessary and learning from others when possible. With this though, I personally am on the side of: I trust ljdawson to do what's best for this app. I am on the sync train because of him the incredible app he made, and how he leads and interacts with the sync community.

I've been using Sync for about 7 years and I've always thought Ljdawson is very active with the Sync community and (from my experience) has been pretty receptive to feedback on his app. When the material you version of Sync came out, people didn't like it so he made it so you can choose between the material you look or the old look. There are tons of customization options. I feel very informed with each update as well as what his next plans are. There are paid features that both support him as a dev and the longevity of the app. He puts a lot of time and care into creating the product we get to use and for me that is more important than being able to access the source code.

I understand the worry for sure. My gut says that stems from the current situation at reddit, but I personally don't think the answer is sync going to open source. If something crazy happens with sync, there are (currently) other options.

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] itadakimasu@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I love open source software but I 100% respect @ljdawson's choice to keep it closed. Not everything needs to be open source!

[-] midas@ymmel.nl 5 points 1 year ago

I'd take open-source software over proprietary software any day unless there's a big feature gap. But I also acknowledge that it's his software to build and no one is entitled to it.

And let's be honest: open sourcing something has lots of drawbacks as well. Read the stories from maintainers getting demands or even threats... To me it's surreal but there's 100% people out there who feel so entitled.

[-] matt@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I don't think your drawback example is something inherent to open source at all - people absolutely do demand things from closed source programs as well.

[-] chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

Nobody's scared of Sync because it's closed-source. People like open source software for dozens of reasons, including auditing, but this really isn't the main reason people are asking for an open-source Sync app.

For me and many other FOSS advocates, it's just a nice thing to have as a power-user. See something broken? No problem -- fix it and send it. The project gets free labor and the user gets a better experience. Many projects retain absolute control over their UX while still keeping the source open for optimizations & fixes -- it's not an issue of creative control.

There's exactly one good reason for broadly used software to be closed source: to make money. It's simply harder to sell an app if people can compile & sideload it for free. FWIW: I think that reason alone is already a perfectly good justification for ljdawson keeping the app closed-source if that's what he chooses to do.

[-] semperverus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

For me, auditing is and always will be the #1 reason to ask for open source, followed shortly by "I want this to work well on Linux" lol.

[-] iRyu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This thread has already been helpful with pros of open source and I'd love to learn more about it. I've personally benefitted from the open source github projects over the years and I do a lot more now that I own a steam deck lol. I super appreciate your response! I was definitely more thinking of creative control rather than bug fixes and this is helpful with thinking differently.

[-] PangolinPaladin@social.fossware.space 1 points 1 year ago

The project owner in open source projects still ultimately get to decide if and when any changes are accepted and implemented, so they would still retain creative control.

[-] Annoyed_Crabby@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Ye. But not able to monetize it mean developing an app will be "whenever one feels like". If something broken you will need to relies on passionate people to come help you, and since no one has any obligation to fix it, it mean it could take a day, a week, or maybe a month to get it fix.

The upside is if you're a dev you can fix it yourself, and maybe upgrade it the way you like it. Able to monetize something isn't bad.

In the end I don't think ljdawson is the kind of people that will turn evil.

[-] EveningNewbs@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Plenty of open source applications are sold. Being open source doesn't mean you have to give the compiled application away for free.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

A small developer client app for an api-based website, closed is absolutely fine. When it's a social service that's storing all your data, it's nice to have other people looking at the work and finding issues.

Sync as closed is prudent and affords him a nice way to make sure someone doesn't take his work and run with it.

[-] CubitOom@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

open source projects still need approvals for merging into a protected branch.

In other words, if you were to open source a project, others can view the code or submit edits to the code on a new branch. Just the mainteners of the repository (you and who ever else you choose to have that power) would need to check that new code and approve it.

If they made a change you don't want to implement, you just deny the change and no new code is merged.

That person could then (depending on licensing) make a fork of your project that does have their change implemented. This means they would make an entirely new project and they would have the ability to make changes.

You would still have full control on the original project that you created. And no changes would be pushed to an app store.

TLDR: if something is open source, it only ensures it's longevity and resilience. Open sourcing a project does not mean now that it is changed at the will of the internet without the express approval.

[-] iRyu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's helpful, thanks for the info!

[-] wargreymon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I don't want to be telling the devs what to do with their software, but it is crucial for an everyday app like this to be open-source bc of privacy and security.

I want to know the software I run is secure.

[-] pfzfqsm2@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I’d say it’s akin to Chrome and Chromium.

Along with the release of Chrome, Google open-sourced and released a predominant part of the source code and released it as a Chromium project, which is open source.

But Chrome has more features and dropper integration with Google services and telemetry. And you have the likes of Edge which is Microsoft’s fork of Chromium with their own features. But separate enough to compete with Chrome.

So you can still keep the main source code of the app open source but keep all the proprietary on a closed source fork. Good for competition and allows the main developer to make money