For those who desire Sonar OPEN SOURCE.
I thought of wondering about Cakewalk's Project 5.
 
Just to let you know. I do not support Sonar being made open source. I contend much of Cakewalk's failure is marketing and hopefully a new marketing strategy is still a ripe opportunity to revive this product. 
 
So how about making Project 5 the target for OPEN Sorcery.

Open source would imply that the code would be released, and is not the same as making the application free or identifying it as abandonware. That might facilitate programmers revising the code to make it compatible with OS changes etc., but it would require a licensing change as well. Arguably the licensing provisions that prevent alteration of software serve to protect the intellectual property they represent. Weakening that protection would potentially result in claims by Gibson creditors that an asset the creditors might receive in a bankruptcy had been devalued in anticipation of such an action. Perhaps it might even be interpreted as a fraudulent conveyance. I doubt anyone who has authority to do what you are suggesting would see any advantage to doing so. 

slartabartfast
Open source would imply that the code would be released, and is not the same as making the application free or identifying it as abandonware. That might facilitate programmers revising the code to make it compatible with OS changes etc., but it would require a licensing change as well. Arguably the licensing provisions that prevent alteration of software serve to protect the intellectual property they represent. Weakening that protection would potentially result in claims by Gibson creditors that an asset the creditors might receive in a bankruptcy had been devalued in anticipation of such an action. Perhaps it might even be interpreted as a fraudulent conveyance. I doubt anyone who has authority to do what you are suggesting would see any advantage to doing so. 

agreed.  Can't see the win for Gibson but see plenty of losses going that route.