[EMIRELADERO]

Even if they end up not succeeding, OSS companies are a good thing for another reason: they shift the Overton window.

Some companies are getting boo'd on HN and elsewhere for changing their license from OSI-style to source-available, whereas 10 years ago there would be no source available to the public at all. This is, overall, a positive development.

[bayindirh]

Well, there's no harm to them if they stop sharing their source X months after switching to source-available model.

It'll even be a net benefit since CoPilot will not devour their code, strip its license out and spit (sorry, emit) to anyone who asks the right questions.

An OSI approved license allows building upon that work, more importantly GPL prevents these improvements to go private.

Source-available provides "for your eyes only" view to the code, and is just window dressing when compared to other models.

I fail to see a net benefit, just a staggered backtrack.