Feedback -- not of the 'comments and criticism' variety. Think of any successful project like a nuclear chain reaction. If you are not familiar with nuclei, so

Feedback -- not of the 'comments and criticism' variety. Think of any successful project like a nuclear chain reaction. If you are not familiar with nuclei, some of them are "too heavy" and want to fall apart, spraying neutrons everywhere; they especially do this when they get absorb an extra neutron flying around, but quantum mechanics always gives you a spare neutron eventually. The system transitions from negative feedback (no chain reaction) to positive feedback (chain reaction) according to a very simple principle: the number of free neutrons that a free neutron creates (call it N) must be more than one. (N=1 is the replacement rate; it's a metastable state of reaction. If you like, the reason why some nuclear reactors have been risky is that horrible accidents kill the safeguards which are simply designed to force N ≤ 1.) This principle is so fundamental -- it's why there's a 'meme' analogue to the 'genes' in the modern theory of evolution, why countries become bureaucracies, and why nuclear reactors are hard -- that I hope everyone working in startups starts thinking about their products this way. It's not signups which you need to have a successful product. It's that every free customer must convert, on average, greater than or equal to one new free customer. Even if you cannot get all the way to one, you boost your marketing effects by a factor of 1/(1 - N), so if you can increase N from converting 0.25 people per person to 0.30 people per person, it's as good as spending 10% more on marketing. And it applies, yes, to any open-source project too. The open-source projects which succeed are those which help hackers to help those projects, just like the genes which succeed are the ones which help their species to spread that gene. I'm not even sure that this particular project is open-source. (I believe it falls into a special case where the GPL is used as a closed-source license. That is, GPL requires me to provide a copy of the source code when I distribute the code -- but I do not have the source code, and I cannot coerce the author into giving it to me, so I am not actually free to distribute the binary either until they give me permission to do so one way or another.) The author's claimed reason for not providing a way to "Fork me on GitHub" is, "I have not made a major effort to put its code on any of the open source repositories as it does not currently seem the right thing to do. Just not worth the effort." And that's probably the deepest reason why it's fallen into neglect.