Friday, March 22, 2013


On september 2011, DP and I stopped working on our respective jobs to be able to devote full time to

In less than 3 months we published an alpha version with the most raw of all features. In the following 6 months we expanded the server with features relentlessly and after that more gradually, as we had to also take care of project maturity, scalability and reliability.

Today, is a very stable project, with only a few nuisances to improve and then only features to pump and improve.

However, although funding has let us spend a huge amount of time into the project, is it s not enough to support our lifehood. Because of that, it became necessary for me to look for a job.

This does not mean Kaya wont be advancing, but the strategy has to change and we are devising a plan for that.

We will stop doing the weekly releases as of now, and we will work towards building a very stable and nice-looking site. Adding features it not our immediate priority: Kaya already has a huge bundle of features that most registered users haven't explored or seen, and adding more will have limited value.

We might include features that are already server supported, but haven't gotten to the client (there are several big ones for that actually) but our priority right now is to finish the site's visual look&feel.

We will be also playing and providing technical support. See you on Kaya.

Regards, Gabriel.


  1. Congratulations on your new job! I hope you haven't been living too much on the edge before this!

    1. Thanks. I kind of was..for a long time :)

  2. Congratulations on your new job.

    Does this mean may become open source?

    1. Its certainly a big posibility. I will keep mantaining the servers and if we do decide to open source kaya, i will act as a code controller.

    2. Congrats for your new job. Hope you will be happy into this.

      I would be really nice if kaya would become open source so it could continue to evolve and become more and more awesome.
      It's sure stable but lot of promises feature are waiting ... :)

  3. Congratulations! Hope you won’t leave all alone, though. (I must admit, though, that I haven’t played there in a loooong time … lacking time.)

    You might want to comment on L19:, perhaps take some antacid or perhaps other substances before reading ;-)

    Greetings, Tom
    aka Bonobo aka trohde

  4. Running a go server requires constant financial input, and the busier the server, the more money it will take. Assuming the server continues to survive, there needs to be some way of generating revenue from the site. So I'm puzzled as to how a pure open source model would work with this.

    1. Actual server costs shouldn’t be very high; I think I could even donate a VPS for it if needed. So it’s just matter of some coins. To compare that, development costs are like 500 times larger.

      There is so so many open source projects which have their own servers and whatever. It’s just that someone pays for it, and it’s not users, usually :)

    2. Open source has been mentioned so many times regarding Kaya.

      To make one thing clear, Open Source and "free" are different topics. I.E. Firefox is open source, but collects massive revenue from google by making it the default browser search engine.

      Open source means code is available to the public to view/review. What they can do with the code is more determined by the licences (either copy, make another server etc).
      It also doesnt mean that any change anyone does goes into the server. Code controllers still have to check what is going to be input, and what its trying to solve.

      However, there is one more important thing that happens when you are open source. Vulnerabilities in the service become trivial to find. That is great when the collaborators want to improve the server (and find vulnerabilities to fix them) but not when they want to exploit them.

    3. If you give the source code, but do not allow usage of it as commonly understood with ”open” license, it *is not* open source. There is no exceptions. You’d be just giving the source for free. We open source developers do not want to deal with that kind of mess.

      Firefox’s license is pretty infamous example of restricting usage of the code, which has resulted to rebranding of Firefox (Iceweasel etc.) to overcome those restrictions. Firefox *is* open source because you are still allowed to modify Firefox and publish it and whatever, the restriction is about Firefox brand. If the license in question does not allow it, it’s as good as any corporate software.