[amadeoeoeo]

What does "appropriate code base mean"? If I did it, then I would of course cleanse a bit here and there, make the corpse prettier as somebody wrote in another comment. More thant that, however, is an amount of work which is just not viable. Thanks!

[saulpw]

Yeah, no one wants some abandoned open source project for a defunct business. The only value is in code that is living and maintained. So if you're not willing to make it a living, maintained codebase, then don't bother releasing your source code, it's not even worth 10 hours of your time, since no one will use it.

[creer]

> Yeah, no one wants some abandoned open source project for a defunct business.

That's not true. The OP mentions there are current users. Some of the current customers might be able to use ANY distribution to patch problems for a while. Eventually, someone mightneed to decide on serious maintenance or not. But initially it quite possibly would not require much.

When there are current users, the future may not be a thriving project but may be simply a patched up current solution. Nothing wrong with that.

I suspect this is the case pretty often: a current solution is not great but it's in place. The code itself is nothing to write home about, but it's in place. Patching problems in the code might be the easier path for the user.

[brudgers]

  Logical Possibility != Statistical Likelihood

[brudgers]

An open source code base built for long term collaboration is likely to be organized differently than a code base written under desperate business conditions (which a dying company is).

Or to put it another way, if it’s not a hell-yes, it’s a No in practice. Even if you don’t want it to be one. Open source projects need enthusiasm. Only Google can get away with throwing code over the wall.

[throwawayffffas]

I think he means properly maintained and worked on.