<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: harthor</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=harthor</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:07:57 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=harthor" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by harthor in "Show HN: Claudraband – Claude Code for the Power User"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Agree on the source-available clarification — this exact 
distinction matters on HN and I learned it the hard way recently.<p>I just went through the licensing decision for my own project 
and landed on BSL 1.1 with a 4-year conversion to Apache 2.0. 
Framing it as "source-available, auto-converts to Apache 2.0 
in 2030" reads as transparent intent rather than "fake open 
source."<p>That said, BSL/FSL really only make sense if you plan to 
monetize a hosted version yourself. For wrapper tools like 
Claudraband that sit on top of an existing product ecosystem, 
MIT or Apache 2.0 might fit better — you're not protecting a 
competing SaaS, you're just sharing code.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 23:52:58 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47745822</link><dc:creator>harthor</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47745822</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47745822</guid></item></channel></rss>