[Aurornis]

> When I complete them and realize that it will really be used by someones, it will of course be open source

There is a chicken and egg problem with this strategy: Few people will want to, or even be able to, use this unless it’s open source and freely licensed.

The alternatives are mature, open or mostly open, and widely implemented. Minor improvements in speed aren’t enough to get everyone to put up with any difficulties in getting it to work. The only way to get adoption would be to make it completely open and as easy as possible to integrate everywhere.

It’s a cool project, but the reality is that keeping it closed until it’s “completed” will prevent adoption.

[esafak]

Hakan: if you are going to go open source just do it now. You have nothing to gain and much to lose by keeping it closed.

[virogenesis]

Maybe he is just waiting for the right investor that has a purpose for the codec so he can reinburse his time investment.

Making it opensource now would just ruin that leverage.

I am with you OP

[treyd]

Looking at history, it seems trying to build a business model around a codec doesn't tend to work out very well. It's not clear what the investor would be investing in. It's a better horse.

[HakanAbbas]

When I bring my work to a certain stage, I would like to deliver it to a team that can claim it. However, I want to see how much I can improve my work alone.

[ericpruitt]

Being open source doesn't mean you have to accept contributions from other people.