Kind of a bit "too little too late" when they're still open-sourcing it but by bit in 2025 after promising to open-source it during the acquisition in 2017. I'm not very impressed.

▲

Vinnl 7 months ago | parent [-]

It wasn't started in 2025, it's a process that's been going on for years. (Presumably, but I don't actually have more information here, the pre-acquisition codebase couldn't easily be open sourced without rewriting for legal reasons, e.g. copyright residing with someone else.)

▲

mort96 7 months ago | parent [-]

Nothing about the communication at the time indicated that publishing the source code would happen gradually over a decade. For all intents and purposes, what was promised was that it would be open source within some reasonably short time frame.

▲

cosmojg 7 months ago | parent [-]

Having worked on a similar endeavor, I doubt they intentionally dragged their feet on it. They likely had a smorgasbord of legal bullshit and technical challenges resulting from code omissions mandated by said legal bullshit that they had to muddle through.

▲

mort96 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

I don't care. Don't promise to do something like that if you can't follow through. Nobody forced them to promise to open source Pocket (although that promise certainly helped the bad PR of integrating a closed source service into Firefox!).

	▲	illiac786 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		You should care. Not holding a promise because you cannot or because you don’t want to is not the same thing. Both aren’t great but there’s a very significant ethical difference between the two in my opinion.

▲

EMIRELADERO 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

How common is it for a SaaS company that isn't an old-enterprisey type to use third-party proprietary code in their business logic? I associated that phenomenon much more with standard installable PC software, especially the type to use specialized workflows for non-standard stuff, not a web service, much less something like this.