> Clearly their intention here was profits and since they didn't see any - they kill it off. They won't do it so nobody else should try to safe email either.

Um, of course their intentions were profit? Dropbox is a for-profit company, nobody ever questioned their intentions as being anything else.

And it's not pure speculation; I've worked on enough internally-developed products to know it's not always feasible to open source an entire service offering after the fact. It's expensive enough to do between code scrubbing, legal reviews, etc. that you're generally only going to do it for strategic reasons (i.e. you know you can never make money doing it but want to commoditize the market space to hamper a competitor's growth, you want the community to help support your infrastructure, or your business model is open source + support).

"That's a speculation on your part"

Whereas your post is speculation on yours.

"Nobody asked them to support it"

At the same time, if they do open source it, people are going to see that it was once Dropbox, and any issues they see with it are going to be seen as the fault of Dropbox.

"Just dump the damn thing online"

Far more work than it sounds like.

"Clearly their intention here was profits"

They are a company with bills to pay and engineers to pay, right?

"They won't do it so nobody else should try to safe email either."

I don't see them going around and killing other people's email clients.