It wasn’t a surprise that we couldn’t open source some of our stuff “because security”
So yeah, good to see this sentiment is changing
We finally get the go when we cornered an exec during an off site event and he finally agreed to let us do it.
Big company are unfortunatly not ready by default to contribute back, it s not in the culture, and you get pushback from internal IT team thinking the code / architecture / documentation is not good enough yet to open source (hint : it never is) once you have clear the compliance / legal / branding / security side of things.
Hats down for the tech lead / dev / manager that convinced ING to open source this one. I hope that getting in front of HN will allow the dev team to get a little more budget to maintain this project a little longer.
I'm honestly asking, I'm curious how people do the cost/benefit analysis for things like this.
Also as an internaly, explaining this project have N star buy you political capital and facilitate access to extra funding to pursue the project longer.
Another example: JPMorgan Chase: https://github.com/jpmorganchase
What if a developer copies&pastes some GPL code? What is some open source dev work gets done on a big project billed to a client? What if an external contributor contributes some code that gets merged, but it turns out to contain an obfuscated backdoor and this ends up inside our online banking apps? What if a company uses our open source code and it's broken and they sue us? (they'll have no leg to stand on, but it's still a worry for management not used to open source).
Really there are all kinds of complicated stories (sensible and not) about ownership and responsibility that need answering before an organisation like this will give off the green light to publish open source. I bet this was not a few developers asking the boss and the boss going "oh yeah sure, go ahead". Hats off.