I think they're onto one of the next big models: democratizing knowledge that's been traditionally gatekept, hard to reach, understand, or make decisions with. I'm fascinated to see where products like this end up.
The blog posts might get a little long if we prefaced all of them with a description of Light Table, but hopefully lighttable.com can provide you with all the information you're looking for :)
You are definitely correct that some of the aversion is a knee jerk reaction and misunderstanding, but that aside, the MIT license is very end user friendly, more understood than the GPL, and more permissive to the end user, plus we kept hearing from folks that that's what they wanted, so we switched.
BSD is _developer_ friendly, not end-user friendly. In this case, your end users are developers, though...
The GPL sacrifices developer freedoms for end-user freedoms. I don't think it's any inherently more or less free. But then you get into discussions of what 'freedom' means...
I have written a ton of software licensed as each, and the tide is certainly turning toward the BSD. It just bums me out.
It's not about end-user freedom at all. The GPL is there to establish the freedom of the code itself.
For the end-user it's irrelevant what license a product uses. They buy a polished, boxed product; they don't download source code, set up the code's build requirements and then compile it.
The only practical benefit of open source products for the end-user is that there may be forks of it which could have an impact on the price (although a product is more than just its source code, so they may not even be interchangeable). Or that someone could pick it up if the original developer abandons it. But these are theoretical long-term benefits, not immediate ones like those for developers or the code itself.
I'm not saying the GPL is bad. Just that people often misunderstand its motives. The GPL is about code in the same way PeTA is about animals. If the humans benefit directly from it, that's great, but the primary motivation is an ethical absolute: code should be free, locking it behind proprietary licenses is against its nature.
The GPL exists to ensure that code remains easily attainable and modifiable. These are huge end-user benefits.
GPL and BSD/MIT-style licenses are not equivalent in this regard, because code under BSD/MIT-style licenses is not obligated to be either easily attainable or modifiable. You can ship binaries and not release source code.
You can profit from GPL code. MySQL is perhaps the best example but there are others.
Keeping the source open is a big deal, because communities and projects can die otherwise. More than a few game mods, for example, have died because the developers closed the source to mitigate cheating, and then stopped developing the game altogether. Under the GPL, this could never happen.
I disagree. You're thinking of the end-user as unsophisticated, who treats the software as a black box, but I'd argue that the philosophy behind the GPL includes the end-user as someone who potentially wants to change the tools he works with.
This separation between "developer" and "end-user" is common, but by no means absolute; there are many examples of non-professional developers adjusting their own tools such as scientists, business analysts, financial advisers, etc.
Besides, the GPL also grants the right to share the binaries with other people, which is definitively something that every end-user does.
The free software philosophy is about giving freedom to people to modify and share code. Code is not a person, it does not need to be free or to be treated ethically for its own sake. The GPL is in no way like PETA.
I was very pleased that Light Table went against the current fad and adopted the GPL, so this turn of events is exceptionally disappointing. Editors/IDEs are particularly effective places to use copyleft, because it encourages the development of a free software ecosystem around them.
We were hearing concerns that the CA was worded in our favor and was one-way, in that people could contribute and we could take their work and commercialize it down the road without open sourcing it.
I know Chris already responded to some of your concerns, but I'd like to weigh in briefly as well.
> By bringing investors on board, and promising Hacker News they're going to change the world
a16z constitutes the majority of our investment, and Chris Dixon at a16z is rather well equipped to help us tackle this problem. It has also given us access to a rather impressive network of very smart people who can help us. Yes, there is a trade-off in that our investors have a say in what we do, but given the small number of investors, and who they are individually, there is a low probability of micromanagement from them. Secondly, we never promised Hacker News that we're going to change the world; we said we have some ambitious ideas, and that we wanted to pursue them. Might they change the world? Sure. Might we also die trying? Absolutely. That's a risk inherent to... well, everything. Certainly a lot of things worth doing.
> The fact that the LT team is giving up on Light Table/I think the LT team should have worked themselves into a crying, bleeding, starving mess
The last time we had office hours with pg about LT, we didn't exactly leave with a warm fuzzy feeling about continuing work on the project. But we did, for another year, spending the remainder of the Kickstarter money and approaching the end of the runway, staying as lean as possible, and continuing to develop a product that pg, James Lindenbaum, et al, all regarded as a nonviable business. We may have to agree to disagree on how plausible it is to make an open source IDE a commercial success, but there was plenty of crying and bleeding before we came to work on Eve.
At that point, it became what Jamie aptly described as a matter of return on effort. There isn't much sensibility in spending countless hours to solve the wrong problem, and running out of money didn't strike us as the optimal way to continue working on a problem we genuinely cared about. Instead, once LT became open source, we forged ahead into an area that Chris Dixon called a "Vietnam" of software, and while Eve may be particularly difficult, it brought us new funds precisely so we don't have to give up.
This is absolutely spot-on correct. Your life is so far from set in stone at age 21 that you won't believe how different 21 is from even age 25, just a few years down the road. The grass will always seem a bit greener elsewhere, but that's human nature, especially when you've just graduated college. When I graduated, I had a top notch degree (like it matters), but I didn't even have a good job that paid the bills easily. It was what I thought I really wanted to work in, what I thought I should be doing, so I took a huge pay cut to be a low-level researcher. I was so jealous of my friends who graduated and took a "boring job" that paid triple what mine did, who got benefits and bonuses, and did exactly what @anigbrowl said - they banked money for a few years and it set them up for so much success. They fostered their own interests on the side, paid off any debt or loans they had, got cars or houses, and saved up their money. Without fail, all of those friends found jobs they enjoyed far more (some of them through connections at that boring job they didn't like in the first place), jobs that let them have a greater impact on the world, and jobs that were more in line with their interests as they evolved through their 20s. And again without fail, none of them accurately predicted the direction their lives and passions would go from the time they were 21 until now.
I did the same thing, but without the added benefit of making any money like you're doing now. I had such a strong notion of what I wanted to do, and as I spent more time messing around with ideas in my spare time and learning more about what I wanted for myself, those notions changed so radically that I went from stem cell research to IDEs in a matter of years. The thing that helped me the most were the people around me. I was able to talk out all my thoughts and worries and anxieties. I was able to share in other people's interests and passions to see if maybe those were mine too. It made me feel like I wasn't alone, like things weren't hopeless, and like I had the potential to be extraordinary if I wanted to be. Ultimately the things that have truly begun to define my life came from utterly unexpected places, and almost entirely from the cast of friends and family around me.
Manpower is an issue, but we've gotten a lot of requests for Ruby in the future. When and where Ruby support will come is still unknown, but do know that we hear you! :)
I think this would be the right place to bring this up: Is language support backed in or can everyone write a plug-in for his language? Implementing highlighting, completion and repl for all the different languages users could want seems like an enormous task. At the same time this is where Emacs shines: supporting a new language rudimentary is easy to do, adding more advanced support isn't too hard either. Will users be able to define new language modes?
Not to be that guy, but on the Overview page for Patients & Caregivers, in the picture with the two women, it says "treatment regime" - I believe it should be "treatment regimen".
Definition #2 of "regime" makes sense to me for this context, though I think regimen is more common in the US (regime is more common in the UK): https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aregime
Tastefully borrowed from it :). It happens to be a pretty darn good question - it's a good place to talk about an accomplishment, and provides some insight into the intelligence, creativity, and personality of the person who answers it.
Amusing, that this thread pops up the day after the "Why I hate HN"/"How to Fix HN" discussion. The 50% of this thread about sexism is a bit off-topic, and about another 25% is claiming the application process is broken or that beer equates to a bribe. I feel like this would have been more valuable if people had simply taken it as a lesson for success through tenacity. Here's what I take away from this: delivering the beer made the YC partners realize that Instacart was already up and running with a functional app, at which point it became a quasi-Pascal's Wager - if Instacart busts, it busts, but it looks like it could pay off big already, so why not bet on it? This is similar to how we got into YC with Light Table. Our initial application for a completely different idea didn't even get an interview, but when we applied late with numbers from Kickstarter to back us, it was a different story. I would wager that for a late application to be successful, the founders have to show a certain above-average mettle, but must also have some demonstrative additional value (like a functional app that can deliver a six pack in 30 minutes) that makes YC take the risk of a late acceptance.
