The arguments for having a closed source blog instead of open source blog boils down to this:
- If blog is open source, blog posts would be visible in the SCM before they're actually visible on the website and the author wants tighter control without the complexity of submodules et al.
- Author is embarrassed over some of the code they write for the blog and don't want that to be public or for others to use it.
- It might be easier for people to fork the blog and use change the name, taking credit for the authors blog design.
- Author is not very well versed in security and ended up having to pay a whole of $130 for a month when a hacker managed to basically abuse the "like" functionality of the authors blog.
In the end, most of the points seem misguided and not really related to open source or not. First can be solved by having two repos, one private and one public. Merge private into public when you're ready to publish the unpublished posts. Secondly is a second-order effect of modern open source. You don't have to be proud over code you publish without any warranties, that's basically what we have open source for. Zero responsibilities for you as a person. Third is bit true, but has been happening since the dawn of time, if people want to clone their website, it'll happen. Last argument is basically the author confessing they really shouldn't deploy backend systems (not even function-as-a-service ones) as they cannot guarantee the security of it, nor the visitors of the system.
All-in-all, this seems it'll hurt more the people who can learn by open source codebases more than it'll hurt the ones that can abuse it. Instead this move hurts the ones who could learn, and just slightly stops the ones that will abuse the system, no matter open or not.
- If blog is open source, blog posts would be visible in the SCM before they're actually visible on the website and the author wants tighter control without the complexity of submodules et al.
- Author is embarrassed over some of the code they write for the blog and don't want that to be public or for others to use it.
- It might be easier for people to fork the blog and use change the name, taking credit for the authors blog design.
- Author is not very well versed in security and ended up having to pay a whole of $130 for a month when a hacker managed to basically abuse the "like" functionality of the authors blog.
In the end, most of the points seem misguided and not really related to open source or not. First can be solved by having two repos, one private and one public. Merge private into public when you're ready to publish the unpublished posts. Secondly is a second-order effect of modern open source. You don't have to be proud over code you publish without any warranties, that's basically what we have open source for. Zero responsibilities for you as a person. Third is bit true, but has been happening since the dawn of time, if people want to clone their website, it'll happen. Last argument is basically the author confessing they really shouldn't deploy backend systems (not even function-as-a-service ones) as they cannot guarantee the security of it, nor the visitors of the system.
All-in-all, this seems it'll hurt more the people who can learn by open source codebases more than it'll hurt the ones that can abuse it. Instead this move hurts the ones who could learn, and just slightly stops the ones that will abuse the system, no matter open or not.