Thanks, I'm just concerned about it being open source, which IMO makes it easier for anyone, including the bad guys, to get it. My understanding of the reason why some believe that should be accepted is their belief the "open" development environment allows for faster advancement of technology and capability, which is possibly true but then again becomes a concern of proliferation.
If the envelope or bleeding edge of technology is being shared by everyone, why couldn't the bad guys be just as likely to hold a superior advantage over you at any point in the future, since you're already giving them equal footing? Sorry to put you on the spot since you already shared as much as you did, but in the dangerous world in which we live I've never really understood why this sort of technology isn't being better protected.
By leveraging open source development for the technology that we share with many others, good guys and bad guys, we can focus on the parts that are special. Our bang for the buck, and rate of increase in system capability, has increased -dramatically- thanks to open source.
To me, it's seldom a question of whether to open source, but of when to open source. One must maintain a proprietary and national advantage in leading edge technology, while not wasting the time of developers or customers reinventing the wheel for technology that is widely available.
Just as processors have gone from the proprietary advantage of IBM and the Seven Dwarfs (Burroughs, Control Data, General Electric, Honeywell, NCR, RCA, and UNIVAC) to being commodity chips from Intel and AMD, similarly system software, architectures and other hardware advance in wave after wave. Anyone caught trying to hold onto the last wave as if it were still a trade secret or a proprietary advantage gets washed aside, in the tsunami of the next wave.