[temac]

It is curious they even released that in this state where all the comments are stripped. I would not really consider it free software in this current state (at least this is probably not GPL compatible, because this is not the "source code" by the GPL definition -- this is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it")

But they plan to re-release with "cleaned up" comments. It will be way more interesting then, and with no ambiguity about its free software compatibility status.

Edit: to be clear I'm not really complaining, it is more that I'm eager to see the real thing, and also wanted to remind people what "source code" is by the definition of an important licence for free software. Here this is specified as "MIT License", which is often considered compatible with GNU GPL v2 or v3: but be warry that it is doubtful this is compatible with the GPL in this state, you'll have to wait a little if you want to do an integration in this direction.

[cptskippy]

Many times the comments are the reason code isn't open sourced. Companies want to audit them to ensure there's nothing damaging before releasing. The same goes for variable names.

This is a whole lot better than nothing.