Why THE FUCK would anyone make a totally free (in the sense of price; gratuit) software project, and then not make it open-source?

What is the benefit of stifling the development of your own project when you have no monetary gain from doing so?

I mean in one scenario, if you keep your code closed source you never have to worry about people stealing it then claiming ownership and that whole situation.

@hexc Well that's what open source licenses are for, amirite?

Because even seemingly free services can hold massive financial potential. Like whatsapp, Instagram etc.

Do you think whatsapp founders would be better off having released their source code publicly?

@mell0 Licenses does not stop companies with small or no conscience and big lawyer budget.

–So, you claim ownership of our software source code? So sue us!

Making the source code available for everyone would also expose it's vulnerabilities.
I know, this is not really a big reason to keep the source closed, but for a lazy programmer (maybe with low budget) this would translate in a less work. Find ways to hack a software is really easier when you have access to the sources..

@taglia But when you find a way to exploit it and the dev doesn't realize it, the dev is fucked.

You want to sell it, and no one's gonna pay big bucks for an open source repo.

@PrivateGER Yes, you are right, but you didn't get my point.
Everything has a bug, everything is exploitable, so everuthing should be mantained.
If you have the source of a software, it will be way easier to find its bugs, which may lead to a bigger chance to have your software attacked, which leads to make more maintenance. For a single developer this could be a lot (or even too much) work to do, for a free software.

Imagine the problems big applications like facebook/whatsapp/telegram/And soon... would have if their source code was open.

Egomaniac/power trip/god complex lol I know someone at my work that's like that with his shit databases

@taglia Generally, if your code is so bad that you will instantly find vulnerabilities in it if it's open source it means that somebody probably already reverse engineered it and has a private exploit.

Security by obfuscation is no security at all.
The Intel Management software is a complete black box and yet people still found a ton of exploits for it.

@Condor I didn't say it is effective, but it may be on the "why should I keep the source closed?" list of the developer, but it won't be the "most relevant"

Obviously, keeping the source closed doesn't mean to "be safe".

For the black hat sitting on a exploit, this could happens to a open source project too.

Having source closed doesn't mean "I'm protected agains attacks", but "it would be harder to find an exploitable bug".

Think at applications like Whatsapp or Telegram. OF COURSE they can be exploited, but you must have to be good at it. Having direct access to the sources would make things (a bit) easier for everyone, even those who wouldn't be capable of doing reverse engineering.. But, like you said, this won't stop people to trying attack the software.

@taglia Telegram is open source!

@linuxxx partially true. The apps are open source, but the server side is not.

@taglia True. But that goes for nearly every messaging app and in case of for example Signal, even if the server gets compromised, you're still all good since the crypto is great and the overall security design of the app as well.