| My understanding of what this article does not say aloud: it seems that this startup wants to get "free exposure"* by being the owner of the open source repo and potentially good reputation from media coverage. It's not unreasonable, and I don't want to comment on whether those specific motivations are "good" or "bad", but do want to point out obvious issues: > we like open source and want Unity MCP to stay relevant and open source indefinitely. It goes both ways. What happens if your startup goes under, which has a 99% probability? By that time, the project roadmap and governance is completely under your company's control. How/if are you going to "return" the project to open source community, and would it still matter then? > SEO of the repo gets reset To be honest it is not completely unreasonable, and that is indeed one more thing to worry if it completely depends on another company's whim. Also, SEO is rarely a thing people talk about when maintaining a project, and this is the first time I see "SEO" and OSS appearing in the same sentence. > It's possible that nobody cares when tiny companies acquire fairly popular OSS repos. Our social posts barely moved the needle. What do you expect? If I have to guess, there is not a ton of overlap of (heavy) social media users and open source contributors, and even less so for these projects that focus on specific areas. * Not really free, there is a one-time purchase fee, apparently. |