<sub>Important Caveat<sup>tm</sup>: this is something we are **merely discussing** that may happen **more than one year** from now, if it happens at all. Bearing that IMPORTANT CAVEAT in mind, please read on.</sub>

Joel is convinced that open-sourcing Stack Overflow, in any way, shape, or form, will destroy the business model of [StackExchange](http://stackexchange.com) (pushing prices down to hosting commodity levels) and possibly the Stack Overflow family of sites as well (fragmentation & dissipation of audience via army of clone sites).

1. **Does open sourcing Stack Overflow even make sense at all?** What do we (stackoverflow.com llc) get out of it? What does the community get out of it? Is it "win-win"? Or does someone lose?

2.  **Are there "hybrid" models of open sourcing that could work?** Rather than treating this as an "all or nothing" scenario, is there a way to open source parts of what we're doing, or restrict licensing so that we don't compete with ourselves in the hosted StackExchange part of the business?

3. **Aren't there other companies pursuing open source *and* hosting businesses at the same time?** Such as [Six Apart](http://www.sixapart.com/) and [Movable Type](http://www.movabletype.org/)? I'm not sure how applicable this is to hosting business models, but certainly Slashdot and Reddit have gone open source. [Dot Net Nuke](http://www.dotnetnuke.com/) also runs a similar business model, apparently.

4. **Won't we be competing with open source versions of ourselves *anyway* in the long term?** There are certainly already open source Stack Overflow clones, and lots of open source FogBugz competition and clones. Over time, won't the competitive pressure increase from the continual improvement of open source copies of what we do? Would it make sense to do it ourselves so we control it?

5. **Could there be "enterprisey" closed source and "public" open source parts of the business?** I've always said that StackExchange is going to have to fork because their private small, medium, and large business audience will want very different things than the public internet audience we serve. Wouldn't this be one way to segment the "free as in whatever the heck it is we're calling free these days" open-source dev work from the value-add closed source product?

Thoughts? Feelings? ... ponies?