Is GitHub Hypocritical for Not Open Sourcing Its Code? Understanding Open Source Perspectives

Github

GitHub is often compared to a library, where the content is valuable to users but the ownership and control are managed by the service provider. Just as a library provides books for readers, GitHub provides a platform for developers to collaborate and share code. However, this comparison doesn't fully capture the nuanced nature of their business model and the reasoning behind their decisions.

Owners of the Platform

Users provide the code and GitHub provides the platform and service. This distinction is crucial because it indicates that GitHub is not simply a repository for code but a service company that needs to maintain its infrastructure and operations. Their proprietary code is essential for ensuring the smooth running of this platform, and thus, it is not open-sourced.

Business Implications

Github needs to be profitable to sustain its operations and continue to develop and maintain the platform. If they were to open-source all of their code, it could have significant implications. For instance, it might reduce their ability to manage and protect their intellectual property, potentially leading to a decrease in revenue. Additionally, opening all the code could make it harder to collaborate effectively or ensure that their platform remains competitive.

Legal and Investor Considerations

Github also faces issues related to legal and investor relations. There may be specific licensing and legal constraints that prevent them from opening their code. Moreover, they need to consider the interests of their investors, who may want them to maximize their return on investment. These factors can create a complex environment where opening the code could be detrimental.

Industry Perspectives on Open Source

The concept of open source is not monolithic. There are different stances on when code should be open-sourced and when it should remain proprietary. Richard Stallman and the GNU crew advocate for the quintessential meaning of open source, requiring the use of the GNU Public License (GPL). However, the industry's prevailing opinion often sees open source as a viable option for some components but not all. For instance, licenses like the GPL can be problematic due to the implications of copyleft and the potential for viral replication.

Even big players like Github and Microsoft have embraced open source, open sourcing large portions of their code bases. They have strategies that balance the benefits of open source collaboration with the need to protect their proprietary intellectual property. This strategy helps them maintain a competitive edge while fostering a community of developers who rely on their services.

Practical Considerations for Open Source Hosting Platforms

Considering the market dynamics, it is rare to find a fully open-source hosting company. The majority of such platforms rely on proprietary code because open-source alternatives often struggle to be profit-competitive. Ethical consideration aside, hosting companies need to maintain their financial viability to continue providing services to their users. Thus, while an entirely free and open-source hosting service might seem ethical, it may not be the most pragmatic or profitable solution.

Conclusion

The decision by GitHub not to open source its code is influenced by multifaceted business, legal, and ethical considerations. From a pragmatic standpoint, opening all the code could impact their ability to function as a successful business. From an industry perspective, the concept of open source is not rigid, and there are valid reasons for keeping certain aspects proprietary. As the debate around open source continues, GitHub and other hosting platforms must navigate these complexities to find the best approach for their users and stakeholders.

Keyword Cloud: GitHub, open source, closed source, hypocrisy, hosting platforms