248
submitted 2 weeks ago by dl007@lemmy.ml to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 42 points 2 weeks ago

Shame they didn’t use a proper license when publishing.

[-] unskilled5117@feddit.org 18 points 2 weeks ago
[-] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

Nice! And MIT too. Perfect; I’ve given it a star now.

[-] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Indeed. They only have in their github page:

Terms of Use

Feel free to use these components in personal and commercial projects. However, while the tutorials and demos are available for your use as-is, they cannot be redistributed or resold. Let’s keep things fair and respect each other’s work.

[-] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 weeks ago

So basically don’t use this in anything commercial because the phrase “feel free” is different to legally libre and gratis. I personally wouldn’t touch this until it’s released under a reputable license.

[-] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 weeks ago

I wouldn't assume this is done with malice in mind, but maybe this is someone unaware of the importance of a formal license.

[-] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago

I agree. I don’t have the time but someone should point this out to the dev via an issue on GitHub.

[-] pietervdvn@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago
[-] JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Its been resolved, the project has an MIT license now

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

They have a proper license now: https://github.com/pqoqubbw/icons/commit/0ae3fe52047e9c8fa326beb09b446e062019d03e

Kudos to the devs quick turn around.

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

There is an active issue with reccos. Hopefully it changes.

[-] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago

This is not open source? There is no license just a statement saying free to use for personal and commercial projects, but don't redistribute or resell.

This freeware at best but if you contribute to this project it's not clear who owns the work.

[-] kevincox@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago

Why are these TypeScript + JSX rather than just SVGs? It seems that the paths are defined as SVG but they are using some JavaScript framework to define the animations rather than just using SVG or CSS animations.

[-] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Because they're using events and downloading a few megabytes of extra javascript framework is, of course, a way better option than six lines of SVG stylesheets.

Edit: forgot a /s

[-] atyaz@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

It's jsx which is framework agnostic and used in several frameworks but most closely associated with react. It's easy to convert to html but I guess the author is a react dev and also these icons use framer-motion which is a react animation library to animate the cursor hover. Looks like you can strip those out if you wanted to use these icons in html without animations.

[-] kevincox@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

is framework agnostic

But it isn't, because they depend on framer-motion and React. JSX is, but the icons aren't.

You can trivially provide on-hover animations using CSS in SVG then your icons are framework agnostic. Not to mention smaller to download and more efficient to execute.

[-] HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 weeks ago

a lot of these are terrible, made by an animator who doesn't understand design and just wants to make lines move for the heck of it.

Since you hold a strong opinion on the quality, can you give an example of an animated icon pack which keeps to good design standards?

[-] Num10ck@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

i agree these arent wonderful but i also like the idea in general and wouldnt want amazing icons to steal attention from the actual app functions anyway

[-] Urist@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

They made me want to click each of them. So am I allowed to consider them nice, or is your "professional" opinion going to be the judgement of that?

[-] HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago

if you have to ask me for "permission" for having your own opinions, well, i won't stop you.

[-] Urist@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

No, I am essentially asking why they suck if a common user, such as me, likes them. Seems they fulfilled their purpose?

[-] HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I do not like them because the animations are arbitrary, with no proper theme and consistency to how they work and what they actually represent.

[-] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

I know I am. I am also entitled to challenge your notion of "this is terrible" that is not really constructive to

I do not like them because the animations are arbitrary, with no proper theme and consistency to how they work and what they actually represent.

This is actually informative.

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

These should be called: Boops.

this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
248 points (95.9% liked)

Open Source

31217 readers
250 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS