I'm very excited to see this ecosystem of paid django apps starting up. Hope there will be more commercially supported open source django in the future (with the obvious effect being more development effort and faster bugfixing).
And practically, because open source is a model of collaboration, and there's no collaboration here -- django's a collaborative software project, and this is an engineering dead end where you pay (or not) for the code and then it gets thrown away afterwards. It's the wasted effort and duplication that bothers me, not the fact that money is involved.
The paid-for version could be a standard Microsoft-style proprietary software license -- "you are licensing this software from us, you have no rights", etc.
Perhaps in some future release Django will incorporate one of these as standard. It's not much work to clean up the CSS each time, but it'd be one less thing to do in building great Django apps.
We use Grappelli. It's a nice facelift and adds extra admin functionality too. Unfortunately, the entire django admin is due for a bit of an overhaul (more talk than action at this point I believe). It implemented a pseudo-class based view before they were a thing, and just changing the admin app to use the standard CBVs would be a big win.
Kudos and credit to the authors of the original admin application – there's a hook for almost anything making it incredibly flexible. My major gripe has been template overriding (lot's of copy-pasting entire templates just to add a new block); but at least it's possible.
The main reason I've been forced to copy and paste large parts of admin templates is the fact that you can't partially override admin templates in the most obvious way due to the template loader getting stuck in an infinite loop.
This is really nice. To the author though, I think a price revision would be in place. Keep free and the $45 option but change unlimited to $500 and resell to $1000. I think you're undervaluing your work as a product.
> There is nothing that prevents people from deciding to pay him more if they feel like it.
That's a fallacious argument. That's not how the market works—consumers are very biased by prices. The more something costs, the more the perceived worth. That's why retailers offer sales. We've priced this at $1000 because it's worth $1000, but we'll give it to you for $800! If you price something too low, you're saying: this is worth $600, but please please pay me $800 because I worked really hard!
I agree with grandparent. $400 is at most 10 hours of designer/developer time—orders of magnitude cheaper than having this custom coded. The current Django admin desigin is a few years out of date; if I were developing a large-scale commercial application, I'd be more than happy to drop a few grand to significantly improve the backend UX.
I'm excited about this because if it actually makes money, supports the authors etc., then we can look forward to a well supported django admin interface.
Nice, there are some flaws as it's very new, and doesn't seem to like things like Reversion's extra buttons or MPTT's tree admin, so I'm going to hold off on using it, but IMO it's definitely the nicest looking admin skin so far.
Feel free to add feature request to Github. Our first priority was to support all original widgets, we added just few examples on 3rd parties, but now we will focus on integrating and supporting most popular 3rd party packages - like model translation, django-hvad, mptt, etc.
I am relatively new to the open source world, and don't really seem to accept the fact that somebody would be willing to pay for something like this. So will people really pay?
It always depends on your needs and project specifics. For someone this might be very valuable, for someone maybe not. Here in this blog post are many interesting opinions on this subject. "Is there a market for paid Django apps?": http://jacobian.org/writing/paid-django-apps/
Honest question, I thought projects including libraries using an Apache License 2.0 (like Bootstrap) needed to include a copy of such license. Is it a requirement to include an actual copy:
> You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
Is a simple mention, in the form of a link to the original Aoache License, enough?
I understand monetizing themes for django projects, but since this is for the admin panel, why not just donate it back to the project?
Open source projects live by the contributions from the community.
Thanks. Feature requests, pull requests and even bug reports are welcome. In nearest days i'll write some documentation on how to contribute to project. Since it uses .less files, .css file needs to be compiled. If you contact me directly on Github, i could give you a hint, there is special .less file watcher included in source.
This attitude is one of the largest problems with open source in my opinion. If people want to try and make money on software, it is their option. It's free for non-commerical use, and the most enlightened thing you could say is "eww"?
People need to eat, and writing open source software to provide for themselves seems like a much better model than doing it for free in their spare time off from some proprietary coding job.
Exactly, $45 or $150 is not exactly going to break the bank for a commercial venture. If it is something you need, and it saves you a couple of hours of time, then you're ahead.
Agreed. This kind of Stallman-esque hard line towards charging for [insert arbitrary software component here] is short-sighted and, often, hypocritical (most people who aren't being paid to work on software don't care about this enough to argue about it).
People who live and work outside of academia (and, lately, inside of it as well) for long enough eventually figure out that this perspective is naive. It just takes a while to lift your perspective far enough to see a larger part of the picture.
I don't think you know much about Richard Stallman. He has no problem with people charging for software, indeed a right to commercial use is one of the fundamental software freedoms he enumerates.
Ironically, many Free Software/open source "supporters" are more hypocritical than Stallman. The thing that these people care most about is that the software is gratis. When it is not gratis but still open source (this is possible given the Free Software and Open Source definitions) these people scream fire and murder.
I actually kind of like it when I see an author charging these days. It tells me they spent enough time working on it that they consider it worth charging for. It also leads me to think (rightly or wrongly) that there will be updates for it in the future, which I also like.
It gives me more confidence in the project. If someone has a vested interest ($) in making sure it's a polished and maintained application, then a nominal fee is welcome. Free for non-commercial is more than fair.
What's the problem? Don't like it, don't buy it. If it gives a more professional finish to the sites you build for your clients, and you think it's worth the (pretty low) price tag, then pay up.
Personally, I'd love to see more of a marketplace for OSS projects. Open, collaborative projects that still make enough money to fund continued developement seems like a pretty good thing all round to me.
