[taylorwc]

Haha I mean nothing that was obviously ridiculous, like “Applebee’s, but open source” or something. It was more just really hand-wavy logic around why their product needed something open source, with no really compelling answer.

[mcbits]

I think "because everything should be open source" is a fine answer to why something should be open source, even if it doesn't answer the different and more important question about how the company will make money.

[ozim]

I care to disagree.

If someone is saying it ONLY to make someone give him money it is not good enough answer. My take on this is that a lot of those people just slap "Open Source" on their product to catch people who can invest and care about open source.

If someone does not really care about open source but is just throwing statements around to look good and get money from people, that is not the right way.

[mcbits]

Open source isn't just a label. If the label is a lie and the product is not actually open source, that's a separate issue.

Assuming the product is actually open source, the important question to answer is the same as if it's closed: How do you plan to make money? As to why it's open/closed source, any answer just leads back to "and how will you make money?" Neither licensing model is inherently going to make money.

But I have to agree, an answer like "because 'open source' attracts investors" is a red flag. Investors are the means to an end, not the end itself.