That's how open-source abandonware is supposed to work though: the idea is that whenever a (for-profit) company produces something that it can't afford to run anymore but also can't afford to shut-down and damage their customer relationships, then they'll open-source the project and give it to an open-source foundation for stewardship and repo hosting. Yes, it's where software goes-to-die-a-long-death, but it also gives some people hope, and the possibility of giving it a new life in future. Currently, the Apache Foundation is the go-to place for that, and it benefits everyone considering the alternatives are worse.
Obivously the main "alternative" is for the original company to simply shut down the product/service, which can do irreperable harm to a company when they have high-profile customers who are utterly dependent on a service.
Another alternative is to use an open-source foundation that's directly managed by the original company, which is what Microsoft did with its DotNet Foundation ( https://dotnetfoundation.org/ ) - and while Microsoft's legal team ensures the foundation is "legally" independent, in practice we know all the significant shots are being called from within Microsoft-proper; but it does give us some modest reassurances that .NET won't suddenly return to being closed-source overnight.
Another alternative is to not open-source it and to instead sell it off to another company that can maintain it while still being profitable - this is what Adobe did with Flash: they sold it all off to Samsung because their Harman division wanted to continue using Flash for embedded/automotive UX work. This approach can work, but doesn't benefit the wider ecosystem the way that open-sourcing does - and something something shareholder value and return-on-investment by selling rather than writing-it-off...
What companies won't do is let any of their engs that are passionate about a project split-off from the company to run and maintain it, le sigh.