GitHub - PySimpleGUI/PySimpleGUI: Python GUIs for Humans! PySimpleGUI is the top-rated Python application development environment. Launched in 2018 and actively developed, maintained, and supported in 2024. Transforms tkinter, Qt, WxPython, and Remi into a simple, intuitive, and fun experience for both hobbyists and expert users.
github.com
Python GUIs for Humans! PySimpleGUI is the top-rated Python application development environment. Launched in 2018 and actively developed, maintained, and supported in 2024. Transforms tkinter, Qt, ...

Previously LGPL, now re-licensed as closed-source/commercial. Previous code taken down.

Commercial users pay $99/year, free for personal use but each user has to make a free account after a trial period.

  • Kayn
    -22•4 months ago

    The amount of people who feel like they’re entitled to the previous code and are calling the license change scummy make me sick.

    This developer put their own free time into this project, they made sure to not accept anyone else’s code, and they understandably felt they deserve to be paid for their time. Whether this was a smart move is another matter entirely.

    The one case where I can understand being upset is if you donated shortly before this happened. But otherwise, you should really reflect on how you’re giving back to the people who make the tools you feel oh so entitled to.

    • Kogasa
      10•4 months ago

      The previous code exists under an irrevocable open source license, so they are entitled to it. Also, fuck off.

      • Kayn
        -3•4 months ago

        Is the license revoked because the dev deleted the previous code on their side?

        Of course it isn’t. At least have your points make sense if you’re gonna behave like an ass.

    • @[email protected]
      9•4 months ago

      The amount of people who feel like they’re entitled to the previous code and are calling the license change scummy make me sick.

      But you’re not sick at the fact that they licensed it as LGPL just to get their product popular and then said “I got the eyeballs I wanted, time to milk this!”

      This developer put their own free time into this project

      When your code is open source the expectation is that you are sharing code with people for free so that the community can enjoy the work and hopefully you gain respect and popularity as your product matures and a lot of people utilize it. People might even fund you for your hard work if you become popular enough. Maybe a whole new product gets developed on top of your product and you become important. That’s how a lot of successful open source projects work.

      If you are entitled to quick success, we are entitled to our ideology around FLOSS.

      they made sure to not accept anyone else’s code.

      So they just wanted people to test their product and market them for free? Who’s entitled here?

      (Also that argument is not going to work in court when people sue them for violating LGPL terms)

      and they understandably felt they deserve to be paid for their time

      What about the compensation for people who beta-tested this product for free and recommended them to others?

      But otherwise, you should really reflect on how you’re giving back to the people who make the tools you feel oh so entitled to.

      The giving back part is increasing respect, popularity, and a community of contributors who will grow YOUR product for free. Don’t act like this small project is a gift from God.

      Also, the author literally didn’t accept contributions. That just means they were looking for free marketing and eyeballs. As soon as it was convenient for them to pull the rug they did so without even thinking about the community. Who’s the scumbag, you tell me?

      • Kayn
        -5•4 months ago

        they licensed it as LGPL just to get their product popular and then said “I got the eyeballs I wanted, time to milk this!”

        Show us where the dev said exactly that.

        we are entitled to our ideology around FLOSS.

        You are not entitled to anything. The dev simply released their work with a license that allows others to use it freely. Nothing more, nothing less.

        So they just wanted people to test their product and market them for free?

        Again, show us where they vocalized exactly that.

        What about the compensation for people who beta-tested this product for free and recommended them to others?

        What compensation were they expecting?

        That just means they were looking for free marketing and eyeballs.

        So far you’ve done nothing but put a whole bunch of malicious words into this developer’s mouth.

        • @[email protected]
          3•4 months ago

          Show us where the dev said exactly that.

          You’re asking me to show me where the dishonest person admitted to being dishonest.

        • @[email protected]
          3•4 months ago

          Apparently you want me to point out where I took the developer’s words but intentions are not words. You’re deliberately trying to argue that I am accusing the dev of things they did not do, but that’s not true. I am only arguing on their actions and assigning motive to their actions which I make clear in all my comments.

          You’re the one who is calling people entitled for expecting LGPL code to be FOSS. I am merely replying to your comments.

    • @[email protected]OPEnglish
      3•4 months ago

      The previous code was released under lgpl so…. Yeah if you can find a copy of it you are entitled to it. That was the developer’s choice.

      Taking all the old code down with a force push to GitHub suddenly is a bit futile since obviously there are ways to get the old source.

      I’m not against developers getting paid, but there’s definitely a ‘rug-pulling’ aspect to this situation that leaves a bad taste.

    • @[email protected]
      2•4 months ago

      Do you know if there were any other contributors to the project? I’ve always held the view that the tail of contributors should prevent relicensing under incompatible terms.

      It’s a shame you are being downvoted, although I don’t (mostly) agree with you, I feel your opinion contributes positively to the discussion.

      • Kayn
        -10•4 months ago

        You don’t have any good counterarguments, so you resort to insults.

        • @[email protected]
          8•4 months ago

          I wanted to elaborate, but then decided that a simple fuck off is much more appropriate and gets to the gist of the content, you know?

          • Kayn
            -6•4 months ago

            That’s assuming you have something to elaborate with in the first place.

            You’ll know best how far that attitude gets you.

            • @[email protected]
              5•4 months ago

              Read my comment and enlighten all of us on how stealing free testing work from the community under the pretense of “open source” is not entitlement? How is this project going to compensate users for beta testing their software for free?