[maxerickson]

If they are clear up front then it isn't really a trick.

If they want to distribute the contributions, they will have to make it clear up front.

[skywhopper]

I think calling it "hackable" is a little bit of a fudge on Github's part, but from what I can see of Atom, it's open enough that I'm okay with their characterization. Certainly it's more open and hackable than github.com itself.

[maxerickson]

I would go in the other direction and say that 'hackable' is so fuzzy that it doesn't mean anything.

"I hacked this wood and made a spoon."

"I hacked my breakfast."

I do get that there was at some time a group of people where it had a clearer meaning.

[chimeracoder]

I don't think it's clear at all. There are a number of users on the IRC channel who seem to think that Atom will be open-source, including some Github employees!

(Tom Preston Warner has already stated that Atom's core will not be open source)

[maxerickson]

I think there is a 'before they start accepting contributions' implied.

Or are they already accepting contributions?

[bowlofpetunias]

Unfortunately "clear" is not a binary state.

Absolutely clear and honest would be something lie "we intend to take your free labor, declare it our property forever, make money of it en put it in our own pockets".

No one would consent to that, so organizations use weasel words or bury it in the small print. Mostly, they just obfuscate the consequences. Especially the "property" and "money" bits.

And yes, that is a "trick", even though by some definitions they are "clear" about it. Thousands of lawyers make a good living off that distinction.

[maxerickson]

Well, if they are charging money for the thing and they tell contributors they aren't going to get paid, I'm not sure there is much more of a puzzle to solve.

Let's rephrase everything: People should be aware of Github's lack of communication before they start messing with this too much.