Therefore, if you’re using my software to make a profit

[not-for-profit-wc]

I must say that after reading the Attribution section of the docs and some random discussion posts, it seems very apparent you were 'influenced' by a lot of other project which don't have in bold Therefore, if you’re using my software to make a profit.

All those animations are hard work. The tailwind design didn't come from thin air. Animatable components API is elegant and took work too. Popper.js is a battle tested and oft used library that doesn't ask you to donate. Lit-* made WebComponents fairly easy.

I feel that you need to revise your oft repeated Therefore, if you’re using my software to make a profit or just change license.

[claviska]

it seems very apparent you were 'influenced' by a lot of other project which don't have in bold...

I was, and continue to be, influenced by other people and projects. Inspiration seeds creativity and, as humans, we constantly recycle ideas. Much of the spirit of open source revolves around this concept.

All those animations are hard work. The tailwind design didn't come from thin air. Animatable components API is elegant and took work too. Popper.js is a battle tested and oft used library that doesn't ask you to donate. Lit-* made WebComponents fairly easy.

This is true, and all are open source projects with similar licenses. I call them out on the homepage to provide attribution and encourage commercial users of those libraries to sponsor them as well. Not all accept sponsorships or donations, though, so perhaps users can star or contribute to those projects in other ways.

I feel that you need to revise your oft repeated Therefore, if you’re using my software to make a profit or just change license.

It's not "oft repeated." It's only in the readme (for users who clone the repo) and on the homepage (for everyone else). But let's take a look at the full statement:

"Therefore, if you're using my software to make a profit, I respectfully ask that you help fund its development by becoming a sponsor."

I don't think there's anything wrong with this. It reflects my exact intent. There's no legal requirement for anyone to sponsor the project, regardless of how they use the software. I will not shame you or bother you if you don't. This is an ask — no different than asking someone to take their hat off when they come inside. They can politely say "no thanks" and the world keeps turning.

The reason I encourage people to sponsor Shoelace is because I spent a lot of time designing, building, documenting, maintaining, and supporting the project. I'm not ripping off another project by renaming it and asking for contributions. Every component, every stylesheet, every example, every page of documentation — that's all my hard, unpaid work. I do choose to use libraries rather than reinvent the wheel when it makes sense, but that's not uncommon in software development and none of these libraries comprise a majority of my work.

Sponsorships and donations provide a small stream of income that lets me focus my spare time on open source software rather than contract work that only benefits me and the person/company I'd be contracting with. I love building open source software, but open source software alone doesn't pay the bills. Sponsorships, however, can change this.

That said, I don't see how moving Shoelace to a commercial license would benefit the project or its users. I'm not sure why it irks you so much that you'd create an anonymous account just to ask this question. Are you an author of one of the projects Shoelace uses?

[not-for-profit-wc]

I call them out on the homepage

I know that, but that isn't a license to ask people pay you.

I do choose to use libraries rather than reinvent the wheel

You literally ripped off tailwind and the animation libraries. At least least lit and popper are proper libs.

This is an ask — no different than asking someone to take their hat off when they come inside. They can politely say "no thanks" and the world keeps turning.

Its a not an ask in all bold, that's a yell. Come on man. It's very transparent.

none of these libraries comprise a majority of my work

If your components were ugly because you lack the design sense, it doesn't matter how functional they are. Go check out the LION Ing components or a few other linked from the lit homepage. Atrocious. You literally ripped off tailwind (and recently too from your very nice change log)

I don't see how moving Shoelace to a commercial license would benefit the project or its users

I agree. If you want to benefit your users don't beg in bold for money. No one wants an ElasticSearch or various other Open Source libs to be used then suddenly the author takes its paid with new features (after people are dependent on it). That's exactly the vibe I get from you.

All that said, overall the library is impressive, very forward thinking and your docs are thorough. If that line wasn't in bold it would have probably come and gone never a thought. Instead you will erode trust when someone wants to use a well thought lib by a person who clearly understands web.dev but can't design or animate. You did rip people off. You just called it 'attribution' and think that's ok.

[claviska]

You literally ripped off tailwind and the animation libraries.

The one and only thing that came from Tailwind was a small subset from their color palette...a tiny collection of hex values which is acknowledged very clearly and used legally under their license. I don't even use inspiration from their designs or components or whatever they call them. I don't use tailwind at all, to be honest.

I used zero code from the animation library that inspired Shoelace's animation utility. The animations themselves are derived from animate.css, which are fed through another library I wrote to make them work with the web animations API. Additional attribution for animate.css is provided on the animations page.

If you want to benefit your users don't beg in bold for money.

Nobody is begging for money. It's an ask, and a very fair one. Shoelace can and has saved companies a significant amount of money. The social expectation and the ethical thing to do is contribute back to ensure the foundation you're building on top of stays solid.

No one wants an ElasticSearch or various other Open Source libs to be used then suddenly the author takes its paid with new features (after people are dependent on it). That's exactly the vibe I get from you.

It's becoming clear that you don't realize how little of these libraries are actually used within Shoelace. They are so far from a rip that I'm almost convinced you're trolling me. Look at the source. There are very few dependencies, and those that are used in stable components are called out prominently.

You're attacking me like I'm Amazon hijacking an entire project and selling it but really I'm a lone developer using bits and pieces of other open source projects with minimal sponsorship.

I'm not sure where your animosity comes from, but your attitude, your statements, your approach — these are exactly the reasons why open source maintainers stop working in the open. This thread is becoming toxic and I'm not going to waste any more of my time answering to someone who posts such nonsense, especially anonymously.

If you don't like it, please don't use the library.

[trailsnail]

@claviska
You do a great job even if not commercially.
My colleagues and I enjoy working with your components and you help with problems as quickly as you can. That should be worth a few euros to every user - especially in relation to the time you sacrifice for your project.