Timeline for Will Stack Overflow's engine be (someday, or ever) open sourced?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 29, 2015 at 5:31 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Dec 29, 2015 at 8:42 | |||||
| Sep 10, 2009 at 1:19 | comment | added | kanamekun | It depends on how customizable StackExchange is... | |
| Jul 3, 2009 at 17:21 | comment | added | perbert | Besides, Stack Exchange is about customization. If you needed a tailored Stackoverflow, wouldn't you go directly to the "creators", unless you are just having some fun digin' into the code? | |
| Jul 2, 2009 at 14:56 | comment | added | Sampson | The goldmine ISN'T the code. Many developers here could replicate similar functionality - that's not the goldmine. As @Dinah pointed out, the goldmine is the content/community. | |
| Jun 28, 2009 at 18:13 | comment | added | Dinah | Their goldmine isn't just the code, it's the critical mass and community. | |
| Jun 28, 2009 at 17:09 | comment | added | LKM | I think the money is in running the actual sites. Without the sheer reach of Joel and Jeff's blogs, stackoverflow.com would probably not be nearly as successful as it is. Releasing the code would allow others to set up competing sites, but it's doubtful that would hurt the "original" sites. | |
| Jun 28, 2009 at 15:30 | comment | added | Jason S | many complex software packages thrive on the business model of open-source but paid-support. if you're smart & energetic enough to setup and maintain an open-source package, more power to you. Otherwise it's a great market for support services. | |
| Jun 28, 2009 at 14:21 | history | answered | jkp | CC BY-SA 2.5 |