Open sourcing OpenOwl. Yes or no?
I keep going back and forth on this so I'll just put it out there.
OpenOwl gives any AI assistant the ability to see your screen and control your computer. That's a lot of access. People are right to be cautious before installing something like this.
The strongest signal I get from people on the fence is the same every time: "is this safe? what is the binary actually doing?"
Open sourcing the code answers that question forever. No more screenshots of code reviews. No more "trust me." Just the source.
The other side of the argument is real too. We have 10 paying customers and a product that works. The cloud (API keys, billing, usage tracking) is what we sell. The binary is already free. Open sourcing changes the equation, even if it doesn't break the business model.
Plan I'm considering:
- core MCP server → open source
- cloud + portal → stays closed
- license probably AGPL so big clouds can't host a clone
What I want to know:
1. Does open sourcing make you more comfortable installing OpenOwl?
2. If you've shipped an open core product, what surprised you about the transition?
3. Anyone here strongly against it for reasons I'm missing?
Drop a comment, even one line. Trying to make this decision with real input, not just my own head.
mihir
Replies
open sourcing something that has deep system access feels like the right direction from a trust perspective. When a tool can see and control my screen, transparency becomes almost non-negotiable. Even if most users never read the code, knowing it is auditable changes the perception completely. it lowers the psychological barrier to install.
@alex_j_jemmy From a user perspective, having at least the core visible would definitely make installation easier to justify. Tools with high access permissions naturally raise concerns, and closed binaries tend to amplify that hesitation. Transparency here feels less like a feature and more like a requirement.
@alex_j_jemmy the suprising part many founders mention is that open sourcing shifts the workload. You start dealing with contributors, issues, and expectations from the community. It can accelerate growth , but it also adds a new layer of responsibility that is easy to underestimate.
Open-sourcing the core MCP server would be a huge trust signal for a tool that literally sees your screen and controls your computer. AGPL on the server + closed cloud is a smart way to protect the business while being transparent. I’d install it much more confidently if the binary was open source. Have you thought about getting a third-party security audit before you decide?
Opening the source is a massive trust signal for agentic tools that need deep system access. It turns a "creepy" factor into a transparent engine that actually helps with niche market discovery. I’d feel way safer installing it knowing the community can vet the "how" behind the magic. Most founders find that open core builds a community of free testers you couldn’t afford otherwise. Just keep that AGPL shield strong so no one steals your hard-earned thunder!
OpenOwl
I will opensource it next week.