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

nextstep · on Feb 27, 2014

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 · on Feb 27, 2014

'source available to compile' ≠ 'open source'

http://opensource.org/osd

malka · on Feb 27, 2014

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

grrowl · on Feb 27, 2014

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

click170 · on Feb 27, 2014

I completely agree with you.

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

catinsocks · on Feb 27, 2014

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 · on Feb 27, 2014

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

JohnTHaller · on Feb 27, 2014

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.

vezzy-fnord · on Feb 27, 2014

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 · on Feb 27, 2014

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

keithwarren · on Feb 27, 2014

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.