As someone contemplating a business model in the data / analytics / visualization space, I’ve struggled on the same point. But ultimately, unless software is at the absolute core of one’s competitive advantage (think Adobe), keeping code private is on the losing side of history. I echo Andrea’s, Ted’s, and others’ sentiments: more is to be gained by sharing it than by stashing it.

I look forward to seeing some of the code under the covers here at FlowingData, and I’m aiming to practice what I’ve preached as well.

If you plan to share a huge amount of data, provide an API. You get best of both worlds :)

By the way, since when do you have these inline text advertisements? They are highly annoying and make reading the text very difficult. If you need the income, please give me the option to not see them, maybe in exchange of me clicking one or two other adds.

But for real people, the balance almost always goes the other way, at least in terms of their personal advantage. For graduate students, that balance is overwhelmingly in favor of openness.

The reason for this is two-fold. Firstly, the value to yourself of almost anything you do is massively outweighed by the value of what you will do. Whether you get a chance to do that future work depends critically on whether others will give you that chance. If you are well known, they will, if not, the may well not. This is a different take on the market yourself commentary of others.

The second reason is just as important. If you can keep your work open, you not only leave it available to others, you keep it available for yourself. If your work is proprietary, there is a good chance that the first closed shop you work for (say, the New York Times) will force you somehow to assign key rights to them. If your work is irretrievably public, then that will be very hard for them to do.

My own case is an excellent example of this. I have one publication that has been cited nearly a thousand times (per citeseer) and I released the software associated with that article publicly. In the years since then, the ability to freely use my own code and then use it again at the next place I work has been absolutely key to my success. In addition, I have benefited in other ways from code I released. Some sample programs that I gave away wound up in a text-book used by an intern I was trying to hire. He later said that was a “final-straw” factor in coming to work with me. His efforts definitely helped us be successful.

So even on a very, very selfish basis, releasing my code was one of the best things I ever did. Your case may differ, but I think that the impact will be even more markedly positive for you because of the nature of what you do.

In my experience, the creator is fundamentally more valuable than the creation because no two problems are identical. There will always be those who steal, but there will equally be those who appreciate the talent that your creations reveal. Techniques can be stolen, not talent.

@Hadley: I knew somebody would call me on it ;) I’m going to release the code for our Parallel Sets program by the end of the year, and I am also working on making other things available. I’ve actually already published the source for my recent Presidential Demographics applet on EagerEyes.org on launchpad.net, I just haven’t linked to it yet (search for my name and you’ll find it). Other things will follow.