[indymike]

>Trust comes from building a healthy ecosystem of users

Trust comes from the publisher/author being truthful and honest with users, nothing else. By publishing source code, an open source software publisher is making a strong statement towards trust: you can see everything. Nothing is hidden (this is not true though when a company uses an open source client and closed source back end strategy).

> There's a litany of open source projects that I have used that have been completely abandoned.

There's also a litany of abandoned closed source commercial software and SaaS products. Keeping commercial software alive requires money. Keeping open source alive requires time. In the end, both are scarce and the author/publisher has to make a decision on what to invest in, and sometimes the software they sold to me last year doesn't get that investment. If it did, I'd still be using NBI Legacy to write documents, I'd be running OS/2, Microsoft Bob would be helping users make Windows work, and I could read news with Google Reader (aside Bob, all of these were at least good products. Bob was... ahead if it's time).

[thrashh]

Being truthful doesn’t mean much. Actions are worth much more than words.

What trust is seeing how a product has evolved over 5-10 years.

I think you’re missing my point. My point is focusing on whether a project is open source is relatively meaningless. It’s like using the price at a restaurant to judge the quality of food… it’s almost meaningless.

[trinsic2]

Being truthful is an action, the best kind of action. It develops trust with people over time.

[trinsic2]

It means a lot to me. Thats the first thing I look for in a company/concept. releasing code to the public is an act of social responsibility. I means quite a bit to the public good.

The public good still exists no matter what people in business think. It just takes awhile to effect your bottom line if you ignore it.