
The Javascript Trap - rlm
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
======
tsally
There's a disturbing lack of understanding in this community about free
software, the GPL and other licences, and RMS himself. Of course Stallman is
an extremist. Every leader of such a movement by definition must be an
extremist, even if it makes them look foolish. The ACLU for example takes
cases that make them look like a joke, but they are forced to because they
must exhibit unwavering believe in their ideals. As the leader of the free
software movement, RMS must act in the way that he does.

And as for the commercial viability of open source software, consider
37signals. Their entire tool set (Rails) is open source, and they make
millions. Keeping Rails closed source was not necessary for their success.
When you pay for a 37signals app you pay for their reputation and quality. If
someone else made the same application a year earlier, it wouldn't sell nearly
as well. Saying that you need to keep your software closed source is
overvaluing the software. That's only a small piece of what makes a successful
product. Hell, 37signals probably could open source Basecamp today and they
would still make millions.

~~~
ced
_Every leader of such a movement by definition must be an extremist, even if
it makes them look foolish_

Why? RMS's movement would benefit most from convincing _us_ , as developers,
to contribute to FOSS. I pray that being a foolish-looking extremist isn't the
best way to do that.

~~~
tsally
Again, going with the ACLU analogy, it's not the ACLU's job to convince you
that the Bill of Rights is a good thing. It's their job to rigorously defend
it without giving an inch. The same goes for RMS, it's not his job to convince
developers to join up with FOSS. Leave the convincing to people who are better
at it. Google's summer of code is a great example.

Based on the growing size and productivity of the FOSS community, I really
don't think RMS needs to change what he is doing. Programmers have already
produced billions of dollars of free software and will continue to do so. It's
an amazing display of our (the hacker) culture.

------
alecco
Anybody who dares call herself or himself a hacker should respect RMS. The
name calling on this page is disgusting.

You don't know the guy, you don't have any thing on him. He doesn't force
anybody to use his licenses. He is just warning users of a proprietary
software trap, that's all. If you happen to serve this kind of website it's
stupid to just get into the name calling and instead perhaps state clearly
your JavaScript isn't free software. Add a license, you need it anyway to
cover yourself.

~~~
vinutheraj
Exactly, I am sure a large number of the YC guys use free software on their
servers and workstations, yet how many have given monetary support to the FSF
in the form of donations or anything ? I won't be surprised to know the answer
will be too few.

Anyway, just give the man some respect, he is somewhat an extremist, but if it
weren't for this guy you wouldn't be starting all these startups on shoestring
budgets and I know that everyone in their heart of hearts knows that the world
is a better place because of RMS.

~~~
axod
>> "if it weren't for this guy you wouldn't be starting all these startups on
shoestring budgets"

I don't think you can really argue that at all. If he hadn't done some useful
stuff, someone else would have.

~~~
scorpioxy
I've heard this statement before. Often along the lines of "why should i do
something to benefit others"...since its clear that somebody else will.

Now imagine for a second if everybody thought this way and left it to somebody
else...

I say, if it is in your power to have a positive impact, then it becomes your
responsibility.

~~~
axod
Did a _single_ person invent the telephone, or the car, or computer?

No, several people happened to invent them at pretty much the same time. It's
just luck as to which got the credit for 'inventing'.

Sure, if _no one_ innovated, then we wouldn't progress, but that's not what I
was saying.

I was just saying that the OP "if it weren't for this guy you wouldn't be
starting all these startups on shoestring budgets" was wrong.

------
dasil003
RMS is awesome. The fact that he's out there fighting the good fight every day
so I don't have to is incredible. We all owe him a lot, and we should
demonstrate that by contributing back to open source as much as we can.

That said, I think he's totally out of his league on the software as a service
model. At the very least he needs to spend a lot more time mulling it over. As
far as I see it, freeness of javascript more or less meaningless in a web
application. The fact is that the barriers to making web applications free are
much higher, and there are a lot more legitimate arguments as to why it
shouldn't be free. Of course Stallman would argue for freedom under all
circumstances, and he's right that web applications do present a risk to
freedom of software in the long run, but I don't think it's as easy to argue
from his idealogical standpoint when it comes to web apps. Too much baby
flying out with the bathwater.

~~~
mattmaroon
That's bullshit. He's not fighting any good fight, and even if he were, he's
doing it in a way (very much like PETA) that makes sure he's seen as an
unpalatable nutjob by any sane individual. His own extremism will prevent him
from accomplishing anything.

~~~
randallsquared
He's already accomplished a very great deal, exactly by doing things in the
way you say will prevent him from accomplishing anything. Of course, you may
believe that this is incidental.

~~~
trapper
What has he really accomplished? All he has done is shift the focus from
desktop development to SAAS models. Why do you think all software companies
are doing SAAS now? We can use gpl on the server and not have to release our
code. Just like google. You get the best of both worlds. FOSS becomes the
infrastructure.

FOSS can't compete in this space because they can't afford the servers - you
have to have revenue to make it in SAAS.

~~~
randallsquared
I think that SAAS was inevitable anyway. You just can't control what people do
with their own machines, unless they're not really their machines in fact, and
that makes SAAS one of the few ways to make money from software in the long
run. The main effect that Stallman had was to push openness farther and faster
than it otherwise would have gone at this point, and to make FOSS a legitimate
alternative to completely closed systems. The SAAS world is still better than
the world in which the IP regime managed to turn the freedom to read into the
war on drugs 2.0.

~~~
ibsulon
In many ways, the SAAS world is worse for free software. First, have you lost
freedom 0. How many times have you heard about someone being kicked out of
Facebook or Twitter, for example? You have lost an unstated freedom - the
freedom to control your data as you see fit. (It's a lot easier to reverse
engineer software that has your data than pull it off of a company's servers
who have a vested interest in locking you in.)

~~~
randallsquared
You absolutely have the freedom to control your data. What you can't control
is _their_ data about you. You shouldn't be able to control someone else's
data, no matter what it's about.

------
jmtulloss
Yes, RMS is an extremist, but his central point is valid. It's very difficult
to develop and deploy open source web apps.

However, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be easily done if there was a demand
for it. Most web frameworks come with easy ways to run the environment
locally, so you should be able to release a RoR app open source without many
problems. It just doesn't seem to be in high demand.

------
arebop
"Current free browsers do not offer a facility to run your own modified
version instead of the one delivered in the page."

GreaseMonkey can do that in Chromium
[[http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-
scr...](http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-scripts#TOC-
Early-Injection)]. Stallman mentions Greasefire later on, but it sounds like
he might not clearly understand that Greasefire finds applicable GreaseMonkey
scripts, while GreaseMonkey enables user scripting. He may not realize it, but
I think the infrastructure is already mostly available for building the
detect-and-substitute feature he wants.

~~~
youngnh
feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that GreaseMonkey scripts
run on the same page, but in no way _replace_ the scripts a site serves.

what, I think, Stallman envisions is being able to use your local copy of
Gmail instead of the one Google's serving you without any loss of
functionality.

~~~
arebop
GreaseMonkey scripts can modify the page contents, and if only GreaseMonkey
scripts could run before whatever JavaScript is included with the page could
start, then it could completely replace the site's script rather than just
modifying its behavior shortly after the site's script begins to run. I think
so anyway, I haven't actually implemented this so I won't claim to know for
sure that it can be done.

Chromium has this "early injection" feature for GreaseMonkey scripts, so
that's one free browser for which it would be very easy to build Stallman's
replacement feature. See the link I gave earlier in this thread and also
[http://www.mail-archive.com/chromium-
discuss@googlegroups.co...](http://www.mail-archive.com/chromium-
discuss@googlegroups.com/msg03760.html) for some background.

------
critic
RMS is complaining about Obfuscript. Speaking of obfuscation, I hope someone
would deobfuscate LGPL for me.

~~~
patio11
I have always read LGPL as "Look for another piece of software which does this
and save yourself some headaches."

~~~
jrockway
Because you can link with it with absolutely no restrictions on the derived
app? Yeah... that sucks...

~~~
critic
That's what they want you to believe. Try reading the license.

You have to know how many _lines_ from the header file you are "distributing"
(in the GNU lingo). If you are using C++ templates, you are probably screwed.
You have to make sure you link dynamically (or else). LGPL seems to require
advertising the library. And if you want do static linking, talk to a lawyer.
Linus and RMS disagree on what constitutes "derived work", btw.

 _Edit: I'd like to know what motivated people to upmod parent, when it's
factually incorrect and can cost developers dearly if they take the message at
face value._

~~~
azanar
You are talking about Section 3 of the LGPL? IANAL, but this section seems
pretty logically simple to me, and I think you are misreading it. If you read
the terms, you are required to do either of the following:

    
    
        * a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is
             used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.
        * b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document.
    

How is needing to provide a mention of the LGPL'ed libraries and the fact that
they are LGPL'ed in any way screwing you? You also have to provide a copy of
the GPL and LGPL amended your own legalese. You are not required to distribute
the source for the library, nor the source of your own application. I've seen
several large commercial applications make mention of included libraries, some
under the LGPL, and it has never bothered me, nor anyone else who purchased
it.

I understand that you want to be able to charge money for the software you
write, but that you seem to perceive the LGPL as a threat to this ability
seems excessively fear-mongery. I agree that anyone concerned about licensing
terms should consult an attorney, but because you want to understand things
better, not because you are fearful of software development turning socialist.

~~~
critic
If, as you say, LGPL, is clear to you, what do you think "object code" refers
to in the (b) clause you just quoted? How are the "ten lines" counted in the
paragraph above (you didn't quote): separately or total? etc. etc.

~~~
azanar
1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_code>

2\. I'd assume as lines are normally counted. The number of line-feeds and/or
carriage returns in a file. I don't see what the big deal is anyway; if you
are at all concerned, just include the license text. Is doing so that big a
deal?

~~~
critic
No. _Whose_ object code? Is it talking about my object code or the library's?

Ten lines per function, per header, per library, per program?

 _Edit: I think you didn't understand LGPL yourself either. I think in the
quoted lines, "object code" refers to your code, and accompanying them with a
copy of GPL refers to having to release your code under GPL. Or do you think
you only have to say you release it under GPL and not actually release it?_

~~~
azanar
The object code is the aggregate of your code and the library's header code.

If you have just your object code, you are not bound by the license of the
library, then you don't need to include it.

If you have just the library header code, then you are not incorporating it
into anything else, and have no obligations by the license.

If you have both the library header code incorporated into your object code ,
_then_ you are bound by the license to provide attribution _along with_ that
incorporated object code.

As for you second question, I'd guess lines per file. But it is a bit
ambiguous, as almost all legalese is. Again, you could just err toward
caution, and include the license text regardless. Are you averse to this for
some reason?

Oh, and as per the wiki link, object code is the compiled binary of your
source code. At this point, whatever headers you included would already be
integrated.

~~~
critic
By accompanying your object code with GPL/LGPL, you are promising your
customers that your code is GPL/LGPL, i.e. you will be bound to open your
code.

The fact that your understanding of the license is different shows just how
sneaky and obfuscated LGPL is.

~~~
arebop
If that were true, why would would the FSF say that "using the Lesser GPL
permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for
a library makes it available only for free programs"
[<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html>]? The LGPL is not designed to
trick you into using the moral equivalent of the GPL; it's designed to occupy
the middle ground between GPL and BSD licenses.

~~~
critic
Nonsense.

> Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs

That means "in some cases", not "in all cases". Logical fallacy on your part.

> ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs

Here, GPL'ers contradict themselves (for both senses of "free"). GPL code can,
technically, be non-gratis. And GPL code can be used in non-GPL programs (you
just can't distribute them easily).

------
shader
I like freedom. Freedom is good. The only question in this instance is -
freedom for whom? Freedom for the developer to write code without comments, so
that you can't hack it? Or freedom for you to read his code? I think that
javascript currently embodies both of these freedoms in the best possible way.
The author does not force you to execute his scripts; by your http request you
asked for them. At the same time he is not being forced by you to make his
source code "intelligible."

The implementation of JavaScript is most likely open source, and the script's
code is obviously available. Am I missing something? Is he saying that it's
not "Open Source" if it doesn't have enough comments?

Trying to prevent people from releasing source code without comments because
it's not easily hackable is a bit much. Almost everything about RMS is "a bit
much" though, and that's why so many hackers like him ;)

------
critic
Somebody, please save RMS, write an Emacs mode that inserts spaces into
JavaScript and converts single char names into made up longer ones! For extra
bonus, insert comments that talk about how if you are not using GNU, you are a
slave! A slave, I tell ya!

~~~
omouse
I think Steve Yegge's JavaScript2 mode could handle that...

<http://code.google.com/p/js2-mode/>

------
azanar
Apart from the political squabbling, the feasibility of implementing something
that "detects" JavaScript released under a free-as-in-freedom license seems
tricky and error prone.

The suggestion in the article that you put a license delimiter and then parse
the text of the license seems error prone; not because the license is
particular difficult text to parse, but because text parsing in general is a
rather fussy and fragile enterprise. And someone could put after the licensing
tag "Just kidding, here's the real license..." which the parser wouldn't
catch, but someone litigating a case of copyright infringement would.

Maybe I'm not being imaginative enough, but I can't think of a way this is
feasible with just the client attempting to glean licensing on its own.

Having a global registry of free JavaScripts wouldn't solve the problem,
either. Assuring correct URL parsing in every case is a risky thing to rely on
for such restrictive behavior, and nothing stops the web site owner from
renaming the free script to something else, or renaming one of his non-free
scripts to the same name as the free script. Verifying file hashes wouldn't
really help, since the free script is allowed to be modified.

Regardless of the political ramifications, the feasibility of this seems
really questionable. Are there ways of doing this I am not realizing?

~~~
etal
Well, it could be treated similarly to version numbers in code. Once a given
JS file is loaded, whatever __LICENSE__ evaluates to (e.g.), that's the
program's stated license. If that global variable isn't set, then you know you
can't assume anything about the code.

------
duskwuff
Erm. The Google Docs JS source is (in all likelihood) "obfuscated" because
it's generated code - it's the output of the GWT Java-to-Javascript compiler.

~~~
boucher
GMail is not built with GWT (and to my knowledge, no major project at Google
is).

~~~
duskwuff
I don't know about GMail, but the Google Docs code
([http://docs.google.com/doclist/client/js/1263044158-doclist_...](http://docs.google.com/doclist/client/js/1263044158-doclist_modularized_core.js)
for the current version) looks a lot like the GWT-generated code I've seen
([http://gwt.google.com/samples/Showcase/com.google.gwt.sample...](http://gwt.google.com/samples/Showcase/com.google.gwt.sample.showcase.Showcase.nocache.js)
for instance). It might not be using the GWT toolkit, but it's probably output
by the same compiler.

------
hymanroth
Whilst respecting what Richard Stallman has achieved in the past, I just
couldn't read his latest post on javascript without getting a bit hot under
the collar.

His position is, in my mind, completely untenable. He sees everything through
his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees
everything through his Breznospecs. It's not enough for him that a Google Docs
javascript file be free (gratis) – he objects that the file is not easy to
read and has no comments. The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a
commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in
passing. What is this guy on?

I have in mind a special device for Stallman, Raymond and the other gratis
software nutters. It consists of a big plastic bag that envelops their heads
and into which is pumped the aroma of roasted coffee beans. It is required
that they use this apparatus until such a time as their eyes light up and they
utter the required phrase.

Today, more than ever, we live in a world of economic reality. In the recent
past it was easy to find some chump to lend you all the money required to buy
that house/car/tv you really couldn't afford, or finance your startup based on
a 10 page deck and the words “web 2.0”. But things have changed. And perhaps
for the better.

The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its
developers. Hacker kudos doesn't pay the fucking rent. I want to know whether
all the people writing iPhone or Facebook apps would have tried so hard if
they knew their expected return would be exactly $0? Somehow I don't think so.

We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis).
If you use it and can afford to pay for it then why should I give it to you
for free? Note: I'm not arguing against open-source, I'm arguing against
working for free. If I spend a great deal of time writing a funky database
application and big_multi_national dumps Oracle in favor of my code and saves
itself $20million in the process, why shouldn't I get my sniff? There's
nothing wrong with making an honest dime...

If the same code is used by some charity or someone's personal website then
I'm happy to tip my hat and say 'glad to be of service', but not if they're
Coca Cola, or Hertz, or... (you name it).

If there existed a fair and balanced way of rewarding open source developers
then I believe the whole sector would explode with a level of commitment and
energy that would dwarf the already impressive achievements seen by the
community.

That time has come.

It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more
realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place.

David Semeria Milan, Italy

~~~
azanar
_He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-
in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs._

Just as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist sees everything through their Smith-o-
specs.

We have always lived in a world of complete economic reality, by obvious
tautology. It is that economic reality that _gave rise_ to the GPL and the
Free Software Movement. These were market instruments made to route around
other market instruments perceived as damaging or inefficient. That there is
so much under the GPL right now suggests that there was real market damage or
inefficiency being routed around. Just because there isn't _money_ involved in
this doesn't mean there isn't a _market_ involved. This market just happens to
trade in something other than money; you seem to see something wrong with
that.

I think I see why, as well. These people, who will work on software for free
-- for hacker kudos -- are perceived as a threat to those who would work on
that same software for money. They are not forced, they chose to, but it still
means market forces threaten to drive the salary of a developer down. You
think this will drive hackers into economic poverty. If anything, it has had
the opposite effect. The software people release for free earns them a
reputation that allows them to later release other software for a very
handsome profit.

 _The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its
developers._

The movement is very little apart from the developers, so this reduces down to
the developers caring more about the users than they do about themselves. Are
they being too altruistic? I don't know. If they are, they'll soon find
themselves being less altruistic out of need. If not, I don't see why we need
to cast aspersions their way. They choose to work this way.

As for threatening the livelihood of programming work-for-pay, it isn't. There
are still problems out there that you would need to pay people to work on,
partly because they haven't forgotten about their rent in all of this, and
partly because there just isn't that intrinsic motivation for some of the
software people need written.

~~~
dasil003
There also seems to be some sort of underlying belief that software is a zero-
sum game. That every piece of free software is taking money out of someone's
pocket.

The problem with that belief is that every piece of free software makes it
possible to build more valuable new things on top of it for cheaper. Software
is additive in a way that no other prior asset has been.

As such, the value of free software is tremendous, almost incalculable. At
every step somebody bemoans that the GPL is preventing them from grabbing free
software and turning it into an incredibly profitable proprietary product.
They quickly point to the lost potential revenue, and completely ignore the
value that would be lost by the free software being supplanted by a
proprietary product.

What if Red Hat had forked Linux to a proprietary model 10 years ago and done
enough to become the standard. Do you think they could have delivered as much
as the entire community has done since then?

------
akie
Richard Stallman is an extremist. Seriously.

~~~
berntb
rms is arguably not totally in the mainstream -- but the world is a better
place because rms is in it just based on emacs, gcc and the GNU (-: no editor
war-answers, please. I don't have the time :-).

(Also, note that the guy's opinions and world view have been getting more and
more popular.)

~~~
dasil003
In the early days free software was the norm. Everyone in computer science
took it for granted. RMS, however, saw which way the wind was blowing, and
helped codify the free software ideals for posterity. If it was not for him,
we may very well not have Linux or any significant open source software today.
We may think he's a wacko, but his extremism is necessary in a world where our
freedoms are bought and sold by monied interests. He represents the public
good in the software world in a way that benefits everyone (including many
businesses and almost every startup). These young YC whippersnappers with
dollar signs in their eyes owe him respect.

------
known
Programmers predominantly think in terms of RIGHT or WRONG and MBAs in terms
of PRIORITIES.

------
vlisivka
I have same thoughts as RMS.

As leader of our national Ukrainian Linux Users Group, I involved in fixing of
various problems with support for Ukrainain language in foreign programs.

Here is my experience: MS: some problems still around for more than 20 years
(from MS DOS era till today); SUN: almost 10 years to fix trivial problem;
Apple: good support; IBM: good support of official standards, not so good
support for net standards; Google: some problems are still around for years,
nobody response to my letters, no way to fix. Linux/*BSD/GNU: very easy to fix
(or create) problem in any supported program, much harder when program in no
longer in development (need to maintain our own version of program in our own
distribution).

All these problems are trivial (charset support, proper charset translation,
national keyboard support, message translations, etc.), so they are very easy
to fix. Currently, then only OS'es that have no problems with Ukrainian
language is GNU/Linux. Even Non-GNU/Linux systems are easy to fix in most
cases.

I agree with Stallman: web services are closed, so they introduce high risk
for our freedom.

------
hank777
what a whacko. I should allow you to access my servers and services for free?
I should allow you to control how you use my resources in a way that
guarantees I loose money? Stallman is a digital socialist. The idea of
services (or anything other than direct labor) that people charge for offends
him. That offends me.

~~~
inklesspen
I don't see anywhere where he demands free-of-charge access. Stallman supports
"free software" where the "free" means that the user's liberty to manipulate
the program is preserved.

In Stallman's dream world, you would be free to charge for your service, or
put ads up, or whatever you like. But your service would use standardized file
formats, and the user would be able to modify the application (both server-
side and client-side) to suit his needs.

~~~
hank777
if you can "modify" the server side and the client side, you can "modify" the
need to pay.

~~~
jrockway
Of course, but we already do this. I block all ads, which means I'm modifying
your app to not make any money off of me. Such is the reality of the Internet
and general purpose computers.

~~~
axod
No, you just _think_ you block ads. It's extremely naive to think you actually
block all ads. I'm sure a lot of people have made money out of you online from
advertising you don't recognize as advertising.

edit: Sure, downvote me if you like. If you like to think adblock etc actually
block all adverts I guess it's up to you. It blocks a small class of 'obvious
adverts'. Several websites will pass outgoing links through a jump script
which may or may not then go through affiliate links. Adblock is useless
against such things. There are several such examples.

~~~
jodrellblank
That's fine. I use flashblock and adblock to block annoying flashing animated
noisy colourful page disrupting ads, to block ads and ad servers tracking me
and giving them power and commercial gain with no gain to me, and to stop
FireFox playing noise from background tabs I can't find quickly.

I don't do it to stop site owners 'making' money from me. If you can get non-
annoying ads to me, and make money from me, that's brilliant. If that's all
anyone did, I'd get rid of *block altogether.

------
axod
Sorry, but these are the ramblings of a mad man. With little understanding of
webapps.

------
swolchok
Look, dude, web software is often part of a software as a service model. If I
let you dig through my JS, you would get the service for free. In short: No.

~~~
mahmud
Facebook can release its entire application platform as Free software and you
could not take their user base away from them.

I think web developers are over estimating the sophistication of their work
:-)

~~~
axod
If their software was available from the _very_ _start_ \- eg before they had
any users, it's quite possible someone else may have 'won'.

You can't argue based on a 'network effect' website that has obvious lock-in.

Look at some non-social webapp. Say an online image editor. If the source was
available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take away market share.
There's no upside to releasing the source code, and obvious downside (Assuming
you're in it to make money and not just spread love).

~~~
mahmud
"If the source was available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take
away market share."

Image-editing algorithms are published in text-books. Graphics API for the web
(flash, java, canvas, etc.) are published in API documentation. Nothing is
secret. If someone copies your GPLed Free software and improves on it you can
go and copy the improved version if you want it.

If a competitor is blindly copying you, you probably have nothing to worry
about (should I elaborate?.) And if your competitive edge can be taken away
with cut-and-paste, then you have ALLOT to worry about.

~~~
axod
It's a decision that should be up to the author. And I personally have
complete respect for both decisions.

~~~
mahmud
Respects.

But allow me to add that the great majority of web startups are running on the
value of a "social network". Remove the users and the service is worth
nothing. You can't say that about shrink-wrap software; even if the great
majority of the people don't use it, there is that one or two lucrative
corporate or government contract to make it all worthwhile.

So in that light, shouldn't the users of web apps be entitled to something a
little more than "free use"? Say, a little assurance that the platform they
trust so much of their private lives is transparent, extensible, and should
the company sink tomorrow, available for replication?

What happens when you strike it rich, sell the startup to a Mega Corp and move
to Tahiti? The users will be at the mercy of greedy suits who will fill data
warehouses with every click, persona and profile of your users, the very same
people who made you rich.

~~~
axod
I agree, once you've grown to pretty much the size you'll be, and have
captured a good amount of your sectors market, for many social based webapps
releasing the source code may be a win. Reddit didn't suddenly drop in usage
when they did.

