Other: Discussion on Open Source-ness

[jeff-hykin]

Describe the solution you'd like?

A discussion on the goals of Warp with relation to licensing.

Additional context

I'd like to kick off the conversation by saying I'm not opposed to non-open source software, I appreciate benefits like

• Actually getting paid
• Avoiding "fracturing" like how Linux OS's have a million variants making it hard to support any of them
• Getting eaten by a big company that copies and steamrolls the original project

However, as a end user, I don't want a core part of my workflow to be fully controlled by a single source. For example:

• If something is broken I'd like to be able to fix it myself
• I'd like to be able to verify nothing shady is going on
• If there's a feature I want that is outside the founders scope or disagrees with the founders vision, I'd like to be able to add it anyways

There are different possible solutions, the two that come to mind for me are:

1. Having well-defined legally-binding clause for when the code will become available. For example: "once we reach a __ ROI per member, we will release the code under XYZ license" or "once we have 10,000,000 installs according to app store metrics, we will release the code", etc

2. Having source-available code by uploading it with a very restrictive license. That way enthusiast/hobbyist coders can compile, patch, verify, and tinker but forks, redistribution, and resale are prevented.

I've just seen too many projects that go sideways, and I don't want the rug pulled out from under me after I learn to depend on something as essential as a terminal.