What caseyf said - this should be covered by software escrow, making an OSS commitment public is dangerous as it can put your IP at risk.
Though software escrow comes with added costs so it’s really down to the individual contract.
Though software escrow comes with added costs so it’s really down to the individual contract.
How so?
It sounds extremely paranoid, I know, but escrow is a much safer option because when you pass that on to the client it forces them to really commit as opposed to not caring if you go bust.
To put it another way: you get a commitment from them in terms of having to pay the fees for escrow, which is more than they would have to do if you made a public promise. That’s a longer term commitment, so you can wrap that into a longer term deal, which in turn can help you stay sustainable for longer.
Yeah, and a bit like FUD, too.
I'm still unclear how a public release would be any better for said saboteur, compared to code escrow where they could potentially be the sole beneficiary of it. If someone is willing to go to those lengths to get access to your code, do you expect an escrow fee is going to stop them?