Divvy thankfully still works without issue and I love it, but when Apple drops Intel support via Rosetta it's going to be a sad day.
https://thelasso.app gets close, and adds more features (or visual clutter, imo), but still doesn't feel as quick and efficient to use when setting positions for multiple windows quickly. Divvy can be configured to stay open, and because it's always centered on each monitor, for some reason I can find it better than Lasso that opens where the mouse currently is.
As stated in the comment on GitHub, Luminare will only be accessible by sponsors. If you have financial restrictions or are not able to sponsor me, I am open to giving the you the source code. However, this is all in order to make Loop more profitable, as I have put all my free time into making it. I hope you understand :)
> The Business Source License (SPDX id BUSL) is a software license which publishes source code but limits the right to use the software to certain classes of users. The BUSL is not an open-source license, but it is source-available license that also mandates an eventual transition to an open-source license. This characteristic has been described as a compromise between traditional proprietary licenses and open source.
This did not occur to me, thanks for bringing this to my attention! I will definitely look into this! I guess Luminare may end up being fully open-sourced.
I think this confuses "software is open source" like it's some intrinsic property of the software, and "if you pay me I will sell you the software under an OSS license which is totally fine.
It's a bit of an honor system because is allowed to just publish it for anyone to download for free but it's absolutely something you can do.
If you need to go proprietary to make enough money that's fine, but this is not open source and in particular it is not compatible with the GPLv3 license stated in the README. You have likely already given some users the right to redistribute Luminaire under GPLv3.
Maybe I'm missing something? But my assumption was that if I "acquired" (downloaded…) software licensed under e.g GPLv3, me as the user at least have the theoretical possibility to pursue the rights granted to me by the copyright holder in the license.
Of course the copyright holder can license new distributions under a different license (or different licenses at the same time). But are you saying that a copyright holder post hoc can revoke the license?
Wouldn't that be kinda weird? Suppose I buy some proprietary software (without any dependencies) because it's GPLv3, and then when I wanna exercise my rights, the sole copyright holder just goes "nah, when I think about it, this is actually not GPLv3".
(If you are correct, I guess that situation then might just be a civil case unrelated to the actual license where I essentially didn't get what I paid for)
No one claimed or even hinted that authors can retroactively revoke the license. But sole authors aren't bound by the terms of the GPL when they themselves distribute the software because they already have that right as an author without a license, as opposed to others who are granted that right by the license.
Hmm. I interpreted "[not publishing source code] goes also against the GPLv3 license that you're using" as meaning that the author is "bound" by the license to provide the source code.
Of course, the terms in GPLv3 that puts limits on the licensee / user (like that derivate works must be GPLv3) are not relevant.
But section 6 in the license stating that the source code must be distributed still holds true. Either OP distributes the source code to people who have the binaries, or the work is not licensed under GPLv3?
I do not plan on ever monetizing the core functionality of Loop, which is why I initially turned to making some of the source paid. Of course, this didn't seem to work, so Loop is now once again, fully open source :p
Currently, the only way I am making money is via donations, and it seems to be working much better than how I initially was doing, so I'll see based on how these first few weeks with 1.0 ends up.
A popular model is delayed source code release, so new features are developed on a private branch and binary releases, along with the code, and made available to supporters and then after X weeks merged into the main branch. Not sure how this would work with GPL3.
It's main purpose is to allow for running macOS on unsupported Macs, but it also can download the original unmodified version. I've only used the unpatched Mojave version myself and I have no idea how well it supports slow/unstable connections.
Nothing special. Just cobbler to generate the iso and kubespray to install the cluster.
Between company policy on social media and internal weirdness I can't really write a GitHub or Medium contribution to HN that anyone would want to consume anyway.
However I do plan to document what I've learned in a generic sort of "If you use Digital Ocean, this is how to do X, Y, Z" way.
screenshot of an issue from before the account was terminated https://s3.amazonaws.com/jasonrm/2025/ycombinatoor-spam-issu...