The catch is - we're closed source, at least for now. We feel that earning people's trust is about more than just dumping the source code.
Our source tree also has a lot of work in progress on cool features that we would like to be the first client to support.
Once we're ready to come out of beta, we'll re-evaluate this decision.
I am well aware of how well this will go down around here and I preemptively support your calls for my head on a spike.
There is no reason not to leave the source open from the beginning, unless you have something to hide. In fact, if you really want it to take off, then you should welcome additional eyes to assist with issues, features, and bugs.
This is where I disagree - I feel that we have a very good reason for not releasing the source code (yet). Our focus is on making a client for people who may not even know what source is. For a vast majority of software users out there trust isn't derived from availability of source code. We want to keep the source to ourselves because we think it offers compelling features that other clients don't and we'd like to maintain that edge for a little while. I understand that in an OSS community this argument will fall on deaf ears but we're not forcing you to use AllBitcoin.
I would also recommend that you don't trust binaries just because their source code is available. It is perfectly feasible to hide malicious code in plain sight or introduce something bad in the build process. We're working on a distributed web of trust solution for code signing to solve these issues in general. Bitcoins have helped expose how lax our security has been and if we want it to succeed, we have a lot of work ahead of us.
Also please keep in mind this is early beta, we're simply hoping to get some feedback on our progress so far (other than 'source or GTFO')
