Source code is of limited use if a company decides it is no longer interested and never allowed external developers into the processes that would have, over time, given them the necessary context to run with the project. At that point the only real hope the project has is that some nucleus of people quit the former sponsoring company to keep it going.
Almost every major significant OSS project has a corporate sponsor (usually in the form of paid employees doing the bulk of contributions). Don't see the problem with that.
And it's usually problems people are solving are work that instigate most of these contributions, so it's a damn good thing Go has a company like Google to act as steward, regardless of all the useless FUD people like to pretend "may" happen because they can think it up.
You're comments are getting quite circular. Your original post in this thread was implying that since the project is open source, corporate sponsorship was less important.
OP complains that Google is behind Go. Someone mentions that it's open source. But oh no, open source projects need a strong core! Guess what, those strong cores usually come from corporations. See how it all comes together?
So you don't get to be angry that the things open source projects need - strong cores - usually come in the way of companies paying for them.
Go having Google is a good thing, regardless of all the pointless stupid FUD people like to spread because it makes them feel better to point out something that could be scary.
> Almost every major significant OSS project has a corporate sponsor (usually in the form of paid employees doing the bulk of contributions). Don't see the problem with that.
Your arguments are deeply cargo cult-ish: they lack any rational train of thought and boil down to an empty belief on how a greater power will eventuall deliver good things to those who have faith in it.
Lots of popular open source projects, including those that are not web services, sputter and die after the primary author stops working on it. When push comes to shove, when teams see that a part of their stack has been abandoned upstream, most will try to replace that part rather than take on the responsibilities of ownership.
