I work for a company that owns several closed source software. One of our software is used to service clients and generate income so it has commercial value to us (and it pays my salary).
I've talked about open sourcing the code, but the option of open sourcing under something like the MIT or GPL or any other open source license that allows competitors to install it and offer it to our clients for cheaper has met clear resistance.
What about showing the code but not under an open source license?
The arguments I've been getting against this is that this move will confuse clients and developers and will get us more bad publicity than any good thing. The developer of PAINT.NET used to release his code and got a lot of flack when he started reminding competitors that the code is only for educational purposes and isn't really open source.
I've also been told that open sourcing for the sake of open sourcing doesn't make sense, bla bla bla, and that unless I have a plan for how that's going to bring more revenue, it's not for us. Well, honestly I don't have a plan, but I thought why not try. Of course I can't say if this will help us or hurt us. I don't want to take the responsibility for a move that might hurt a company that's doing well and get people laid off.
As I said, an open source license does not look like an option, so it's between closed source or showing the code but still under a normal copyright license. But as I said there's resistance to showing the code because of the worry that competitors will use our code to create their own.
Does anyone know of any facts that can help with this decision, whether in favor or against showing the code.