I find it remarkable that the 'management' would want to do this. This make their company look ridiculously out of touch; by now LOTS of people have seen and edited this code themselves, and have copies; you can't put that genie back in the bottle.
They could have used this to their advantage by simply allowing it to stay open but requiring that their company/brand name be used in the project (like Twitter Bootstrap), thus allowing the company to be seen as a supporter of the open source community without much effort on their part. Now they look the exact opposite of that, by doing something that would require huge effort and resources to achieve/maintain.
Comments
I find it remarkable that the 'management' would want to do this. This make their company look ridiculously out of touch; by now LOTS of people have seen and edited this code themselves, and have copies; you can't put that genie back in the bottle.
They could have used this to their advantage by simply allowing it to stay open but requiring that their company/brand name be used in the project (like Twitter Bootstrap), thus allowing the company to be seen as a supporter of the open source community without much effort on their part. Now they look the exact opposite of that, by doing something that would require huge effort and resources to achieve/maintain.
There's still time, if that's something they wish to do.
If/when the whole story emerges, it'd be neat to hear.