Hacker News Reader

I completely disagree with this- they aren't making an effort at all here, they're actively damaging a movement. They could have just said they were going shared source or one of the other "closed for use, but open for audit" licenses that exist. Instead they lied about what they're doing, and did so in a way that damages open source development.

Making an effort only counts as a good thing if they're making an effort to do good things. This isn't that though.

> shooing away acts like these just make going open source all around a worse business choice

I don't understand? They're not going open source so why is the reaction in this thread making actually going open source a worse choice?

You can't expect a good reaction when you announce that a product is now "Open Source" and then not actually use an Open Source license.

> They are making an effort though.

Releasing the source is nice but they shouldn't use deceptive language.

> found it more advantageous to make their product available to the public.

That's fine but they should call it something else.