Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There doesn't seem to be any justification offered on why it's not yet open source. Not that one is required, but it is suspicious that such a commitment isn't a priority, and that maybe there is a desire to keep closed-source as an option.

Personally, I'd not want to check any assets into such a tool before it becomes open-source.



Open sourcing code can require a lot of resources to do it right (manage the community, handle licensing etc). If you don't have customers asking for it and you don't need it for customer acquisition it might not make sense.


Licensing: just choice a good safe default: apache2.0 or mpl2.0

Open sourcing does not mean you want or going to accept external contribution, just be explicit that you don't accept external contributions.

There are several open source projects that are developed with no public contribution policy. Nothing new to invent here.


> Licensing: just choice a good safe default: apache2.0 or mpl2.0

No, this is how you get seriously annoying divergences in products like this. GPL2/3 would be 10/10. It would also protect the company too.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: