Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Not related to the post itself.
But oh my, I visited the index page, that is a provocative mouse-cursor effect! I kind of like it!
by eliasson - The author highlights exactly what is wrong with doing "Open source" or "Build in public" in 2026.
It now doesn't make any sense to someone to go full time open source (and running on donations) and it is completely thankless of your time anyway. AI has now made it far worse for them.
But the most evergreen part of this is, developers will almost certainly never pay for their own tools and will always build their own and then expect to sell it to themselves, which doesn't work.
So we will more close-sourcing which the author has the right to do.
by rvz - open source will never die as long as there are crazy idealists (like me) who put their time into building things for free, and hope that they will make some random persons life a little bit better. not everyone is a silicon valley "hacker" looking for a bag or a line on their resume.by tancop
- This has nothing to do with open source but to using an opened forge with no restrictions.
As other have said you can always put your app and source code in a web page or read only repo and call it a day. Some people have been doing just that for decades. You don't even have to publish an email address or a real name.
by prmoustache - Prediction: "Companies will revert to closed-source and cease contributions to F/OSS projects."
- This appears to be an individual rather than a company.by jdiff
- Isn't there a clause to opensource for "unmaintained, delivered as is?"by gnarlouse
- Open source licenses dictate permission to access to the source code, distribute it, change it, and distribute those changes. They say nothing about how the developer needs to maintain the project or provide support. There are FOSS licenses that mention warranties and support but that isn't exclusive to FOSS, plenty of closed source products come with zero support as well. Support generally comes into play when you pay money for something, which again, is completely separate from FOSS licenses.by wildzzz
- Ultimately it’s the authors choice and the community is not entitled to anything, but I’m surprised the idea of remaining open source while closing PRs/issues isn’t brought up. I’m sure the author thought of doing that but didn’t, but I wonder why.by ro_bit
- I'm probably missing something big...but after trying this herdr, conductor, etc...I always come back to ghostty+tmux+nvim....idk, maybe it's my old brain sticking to its existing synapses, but I find this setup much easier to maintain and more intuitive to think of whatever customization I needby malkosta
- I don't really see how that works. I have my own terminal app (because I love cool retro terminal and kitty, but nobody combined them so far), built by Claude. It's open source. I don't think anyone but me uses it. There's nothing that says something I build only for myself can't be open source.
I suspect it's more about the noise that comes along with it, if it's used by more people than you.
by Aeolun - If you are on GitHub then you can also disable issues and only allow pulls from contributors (you). Then you still develop “in the open” but don’t take contributions.by st3fan
- But “open source” doesn’t mean you have to accept PRs or deal with other people, right? Can’t the source just be hosted somewhere with no PRs or issues or comments or anything?
If they don’t want to do even that, then that’s fine, it’s their choice. But it seems like there’s a reasonable middle ground that’s just being skipped over.
by nkrisc - They still spam you to death and threaten you with violence if you don't reply sooooby boesboes
- Do what you want, sure. But people complain a lot about "open source maintenance". But you could just release the source and call it a day. Put up a web page with a tarball of the code, updated whenever you consider it a new release. You don't have to publish your git repo and allow pull requests and issues and all of that nonsense. None of that has anything to do with the purpose of open source, which is about giving access to the code that runs your computer so you can be in control of it.by efficax
- From TFA “The Canario source code is still there in the older versions of Rio. People can fork that if they want to. All good from my side.”by grosswait
- I think the SQLite model of contribution "Open-Source, not Open-Contribution" is a good middle ground to keep maintainer's sanity while having the code open [1]:
"SQLite is open-source, meaning that you can make as many copies of it as you want and do whatever you want with those copies, without limitation. But SQLite is not open-contribution. In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and ensure that the code does not become contaminated with proprietary or licensed content, the project does not accept patches from people who have not submitted an affidavit dedicating their contribution into the public domain."
by jicea - The text you quoted is purely about copyright/licensing, not about the maintainers' sanity.
The more relevant quote is: "In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, the project does not accept patches from random people on the internet. There is a process to get a patch accepted, but that process is involved and for smaller changes is not normally worth the effort." Though this is still about copyright, not about being swamped with PRs.
by derdi - He has a right to do anything he wants with hit source, but Open Source is nothing more than a license. We had GPL 2 before there was github. All you had to do is either deliver the source with your software, or make the source available upon request, even if it's by snail-mail.
My only exception to this article is the section, "People underestimate what open source costs from the maintainer side. It’s not just writing code. It’s issues, pull requests, discussions, people demanding things from you for free. I got spammed like crazy. And now with AI, spamming a maintainer is so easy: low effort issues, generated pull requests, and every single one of them takes a bit of your time and energy"
This is all self-inflicted. Don't take Issues. Don't take PRs. Make the repo read-only to everyone but you. There's zero effort, unless you're planning on keeping all the source on your computer and never push it anywhere. Well, I guess, in that case you're saving yourself from doing a push.
So if you don't want to do all that stuff, that's fine. You don't have to. But don't pretend the only alternative is to close the source.
by kasajian - We also had open source before we had GPL, that is how UNIX got widespread anyway, in source tapes.
Amiga had the Fish disks, PC had all the whateverware variants during its MS-DOS days.
8 bits naturally had the magazine listings to type in.
by pjmlp - I thought that GitHub supports some sort of locking repo, such as not allowing PRs? As X allows comments from accounts mentioned in tweet.by sixtyj
- 100% agree. Especially since you wouldn't have to start taking his word for the things he explicitly lays out in this article, that previously were checkable at no additional cost to any partyby tyromaniac
- Yep. People seem to have forgotten about the cathedral vs bazaar. Somehow in many people's minds open source implies bazaar but both cathedral and bazaar are both free/open source. The author just wants to go to a cathedral style project, which is perfectly understandable. There's no need to make it closed source.
- There is no pretense here that closing the source is the only alternative. It's only the alternative the author has chosen.
For better or worse we live in a society. Even being perceived and having a simulacrum of you in someone's head, much less a collective simulacrum in many people's heads is restrictive. Every facet of yourself you reveal to is another string tied upon you. I'm not here to argue one way or another what you should do, but it is not self inflicted, it is a fact of social existence. Even to have the discipline to ignore an email can be taxing, especially if you view the person on the other end as a human. Just being made aware of a bug, or a different way of structuring things is an infohazard if your goal is to just have fun doing things your way. I think closing the source like this is a fairly drastic course of action, but there's plenty of things I've written that aren't open source for the same reasons, even though I'd like them to be, I'd rather be a hermit about it just because the vibe is better.
- I mostly agree, but from experience, when you readonly your repository, you encourage a bunch of forks, then people ping you in those based on git blame, and many other out-of-band contacts. But I think that cat is out of the bag anyway.
A terminal is critical software, you type passwords into it, it sees all the output, you need to trust it, so while I'm sad to find out about this project only today, the closed-source is indeed a deal-breaker for me
by ddlsmurf