Closing Canario Terminal source code

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• 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 need
  by 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
• 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
• 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."

  [1]: https://sqlite.org/copyright.html

  by jicea
• 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