Reddit's Main Code Is No Longer Open Source (reddit.com)

An anonymous reader quotes an announcement from Reddit's founding engineer: When we open sourced Reddit back in 2008, Reddit Inc was a ragtag organization and the future of the company was very uncertain. We wanted to make sure the community could keep the site alive should the company go under and making the code available was the logical thing to do. Nine years later and Reddit is a very different company and as anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed, we've been doing a bad job of keeping our open-source product repos up to date. This is for a variety of reasons, some intentional and some not so much:

Open-source makes it hard for us to develop some features "in the clear" (like our recent video launch) without leaking our plans too far in advance. As Reddit is now a larger player on the web, it is hard for us to be strategic in our planning when everyone can see what code we are committing. Because of the above, our internal development, production and "feature" branches have been moving further and further from the "canonical" state of the open source repository... We are actively moving away from the "monolithic" version of reddit that works using only the original repository... Because of these reasons, we are making the following changes to our open-source practice. We're going to archive reddit/reddit and reddit/reddit-mobile. These will still be accessible in their current state, but will no longer receive updates.
The announcement has been condensed slightly, but Reddit's founding engineer insists that "We believe in open source, and want to make sure that our contributions are both useful and meaningful. We will continue to open source tools that are of use to engineers everywhere." In addition, "Much of the core of Reddit is based on open source technologies (Postgres, python, memcached, Cassanda to name a few!) and we will continue to contribute to projects we use and modify..."

"Those who have been paying attention will realize that this isn't really a change to how we're doing anything but rather making explicit what's already been going on."

Comments

Neither is Slashdot's

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine that: Companies only embrace open source when they benefit from it.

Was anyone using it?

[Yaztromo]

Does anybody care? I only spent five minutes researching the subject, but from what I can find virtually nobody is using Reddit's Open Source code to run their own websites.

Reddit's reasoning seems dickish -- they benefitted from being Open Source when it benefitted them, but as soon as it didn't, they decided to stop. I find their reasoning for making the code closed source specious -- does having video really give them some sort of competitive advantage? Video is hardly new on the web -- every major service already supports it. I doubt they're doing anything so new that nobody else can figure out how to do it on their own competing websites.

Sorry Reddit. It's a dick move and your reason sucks, but somehow I doubt anyone really cares all that much how your code is licensed, as virtually nobody is using it anyway.

Yaz

Re:Was anyone using it?

[serviscope_minor]

censorship is seen as a virtue.

Moderating private forums is a virtue.

Free speech means you won't get jailed so you can criticise the government without fear of arrest etc. It doesn't mean you won't get ostracised, disinherited and thrown out of the private clubhouse.

With all these cries of censorship no one has actually been prevented from their legal speech. Some people have fonud it tricky to find somewhere to host them but in the end there are options.

So yes the system works and no you have no legal, moral or ethical right to say whatever you want where ever you want whenever you want.

Re:Was anyone using it?

[drinkypoo]

No, I did not. - "a way for any message to be heard" is not the same as "anyone should have to listen".

Yes, yes it is.

One is an available channel, the other is a forced acceptance of content (or something?).

No, you're missing it; that's my point. What you have a right to is the right to share your message with anyone who wants it; you have the right to speech, and not the right to be heard. It's like the difference between implication and inference. The speaker implies; the listener infers. The speaker speaks; the listener hears. You have the right to speak. You do not have the right to force others to hear. And that is why you don't have the right to force any particular communications channel to carry your message, and you don't have the right to scream in people's faces. There's really no meaningful difference.

Re: Why bother?

[sg_oneill]

Psssst there are more countries than America