"Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either."

"Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either."(discuss.atom.io)

15 points by Pym 12 years ago | 11 comments

nextstep 12 years ago |

That sounds like closed source. I don't see how there could be a gray area here. Either I can compile Atom from source, or it's not open source.

gojomo 12 years ago | |

'source available to compile' ≠ 'open source'

http://opensource.org/osd

click170 12 years ago | |

I completely agree with you.

But at the same time, there's the Android/AOSP situation.

malka 12 years ago | |

You could be able to compile it from sources, but fotking could be forbidden for example

grrowl 12 years ago | | |

By GitHub (and Git's) own structure, everything is forkable. It would be very unlike them to prevent forking on one of thier own "special" repos, but in the worst case you could still:

  git clone git@github.com:atom.io/core.git
  git remote add fork git@github.com:grrowl/atom-core.git
  git push -u fork master

catinsocks 12 years ago |

That is disappointing I understand that work deserves money but I wanted a viable competitor to the big 2.

Emacs has gotten better because of XEmacs, vim may get better because of newvim, but that won't be possible here unless you want to contribute your time for a closed source project and hope that whoever sees your pull request chooses to merge it.

Here's hoping they change their mind and perhaps develop a few useful paid extensions or something like that instead.

0X1A 12 years ago | |

Considering GitHub is essentially entirely closed source, I doubt there will be a change of heart.

JohnTHaller 12 years ago |

It can either be:

1. Open Source - The source is available under a license recognized as open source so others can contribute to and build on it (think Firefox).

2. Closed Source - The application may use certain open source components and abide by their licenses and distribute their source code but the application as a whole does not have the full source to it available under any circumstances (think Mac OS X)

3. Shared Source - The full application source is available for analysis under a specific agreement or license, possibly paid, but may not be used in other projects or recompiled. The restrictions vary from onerous, to 'here's all the source you just can't use it'. (think Windows, and think onerous)

It won't be 1, so it will be either 2 or 3. If 3, it could just all be available for free for analysis but not licensed for any other use.

keithwarren 12 years ago |

Some companies choose not to open source their stuff because it opens up more opportunities for revenue.

This insistence that everything be open source or it is somehow inferior is tantamount to the people raging over 0.99 apps. How dare they not give away their work for free!

If you want a FOSS editor there are lots of options but don't cry foul when someone announces a new one which you think is cool but then throw a hissy fit when they choose to not open it up like you think they should.

vezzy-fnord 12 years ago |

Essentially it's proprietary, but with a viewable source.

Similar to Microsoft's "shared source" licensing models.

Still proprietary at the end of the day. Let's not dilute this with misleading euphemisms like "closed source" and "open source". Freedom is no priority here, it seems.

captn3m0 12 years ago | |

What exactly will users be paying for, if you can just clone it and build it?