Thank you @janx for taking part in this discussion, I can’t stress enough how important is for the Nervos Community to hear the opinion of the Nervos Founders and I’m really happy to see you engaging more and more with the Community on Nervos Talk 
Yes, please! 
As a Community Developer I wholeheartedly agree with this! Just yesterday I was rambling that closed source projects not only make my life more difficult, but also that they have a tendency to betray user trust.
Successful closed source projects: JoyID, Stable++, UTXO Swap… There are many more that disappeared over time.
I would require for any project receiving grants to open-source everything developed using these grants. If not MIT, at the very least a license like Uniswap v3. (Idea for CommunityDAO v2 
)
It’s actually even trickier, we should also encourage real decentralization in contract deployment, for example:
DID is a blockchain-based, open source, censorship-resistant decentralized account system
And we all agree that most of their code is now Open-Source. The issue is:
- How can I trust to build on top of their contracts when these contracts are deployed by type and frequently updated?
- At their call they could potentially break anything I build on top of these contracts, cause they fully control the lock of the binary.
- Not so decentralized there.
On the other side, iCKB is truly decentralized because, even if I wanted to updated them (for example to support SSRI), I cannot change the deployed contracts, cause they are deployed by Data1. Even more, the lock on the binary is a zero lock, so it cannot be unlocked.
In my opinion it would be nice if there was a way to make some contract deployed by Type owned by the community and updateable under the right conditions. Maybe a requirement for new Grants? (Idea for CommunityDAO v2 )
Love & Peace, Phroi