> I completely agree with the point of principle, just found it odd to simply dismiss a project on it. I dismissed the project the moment I learnt it's closed-

> I completely agree with the point of principle, just found it odd to simply dismiss a project on it. I dismissed the project the moment I learnt it's closed-source, for the reasons I've given. A point of principle is a fine reason to dismiss something, even in the absence of a practical concern. Here we have both. There are plenty of things I can shrug off about a software project, such as internal design decisions I disagree with, or using tools and languages that I dislike, or even using a Free and Open Source software licence that I dislike. Choosing to make it closed-source is bigger than that. To be clear, I'm not a FOSS purist (I'm writing this from Firefox on Windows 10), but for a tool like this in particular, it should either be FOSS, or direct from Microsoft. > The norm for HN maybe just hasn't reached the authors yet given their home countries and the fact they seem to identify via Steam profiles, i.e. are likely more involved in a social circle of Windows based gamers instead of FOSS folks. This doesn't change my assessment at all. If the developers are beginners/hobbyists and are, bluntly, of such low calibre that they aren't aware of the advantages of Free and Open Source software, I don't see how that's reassuring. > for all I know this was made by a bunch of 15 year olds that simply didn't know any better Then I'm glad I was quick to dismiss the idea of giving their code admin rights on my machine! > I found "not open source. won't install, won't suggest." a rather lazy contribution You're right that detay's reply didn't explain their dismissal, yes. > attribution of bad intentions I mean, they are denying us the rights to study and improve the software. That's what closed-source software means. Was the decision to go closed-source the result of bad intentions? Perhaps not, as you say they might not be deliberately setting out to deny rights that people value, but my strong reservations remain justified. > "closed source == bad" style comments are just plain unnecessary In the context of software of this kind, closed source is bad. I think I've justified this position.