diff --git a/content/posts/2026-open-source/index.md b/content/posts/2026-open-source/index.md
deleted file mode 100644
index aa28319..0000000
--- a/content/posts/2026-open-source/index.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,75 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = 'Why Open Source?'
-date = 2026-05-09T18:00:00-00:00
-lastmod = 2026-05-09T18:00:00-00:00
-draft = true
-tags = ['open source']
-[params]
-  author = 'Iain Learmonth'
-+++
-
-All of our development efforts at SR2 Communications are released under an open source licence.
-This is often a condition of the grants that fund our work but we don't just use the licences to meet contractual
-requirements. We strongly believe that open source software is the best way to approach the technical needs of
-civil society organisations.
-
-Kerckhoffs's Principle is one guiding idea in this approach.
-The principle holds that a cryptosystem should be secure, even if everything about the system, except the key, is public
-knowledge[^1].
-Kerckhoffs's principle was later phrased by the American mathematician Claude Shannon as "the enemy knows the system".
-
-This principle forces us to build software that would withstand a source code leak because it's already open.
-We cannot hide security flaws behind obscurity.
-Every algorithm, every protocol decision, every line of networking code must be robust enough for expert scrutiny.
-When vulnerabilities are found, and they sometimes are, they're found by friendly researchers who report them, rather
-than by adversaries who exploit them silently.
-
-This auditability also helps us build trust.
-When our code is fully auditable, users can verify exactly what our software does, and crucially, what it doesn't do.
-They can confirm we're not logging their activity, not inserting backdoors, not collaborating with adversaries.
-This trust is foundational.
-Without it, users won't risk using our tools, and the tools become useless.
-
-When we produce censorship circumvention tools, we are building in a context where there is already distrust.
-Censorship cannot exist without surveillance.
-To block content, authorities must first monitor what users are accessing.
-This surveillance creates a chilling effect: even when censorship isn't actively enforced, the threat of being watched
-leads to self-censorship.
-Users hesitate to search for sensitive topics, search for alternative news sources, or communicate openly.
-We must circumvent not only the censorship imposed technically, but the self-censorship imposed by the threat of
-surveillence.
-
-Funding for internet freedom work can be unpredictable. Grant cycles end. Priorities shift.
-If a funding gap forces us to halt development, open source ensures continuity is possible.
-Other organisations can pick up where we left off without needing any permission from us.
-They can maintain the software, apply security patches, and keep services running for users who depend on them.
-
-Even when funding is stable we cannot be everywhere at once.
-Our team has expertise in specific regions and network conditions, but censorship takes different forms across the
-world.
-Deep packet inspection, for example, may be implemented differently in different regions but if we have an open source
-framework for defeating it, we enable others to adapt our tools for their local contexts.
-A developer in a region we've never considered can fork our repository, modify protocols to evade their specific regional
-environment, and deploy it for use.
-
-Our open approach invites contributions from a global community of security researchers, computer scientists, and
-censorship measurement specialists.
-These academics scrutinise our cryptography, suggest protocol improvements, and identify vulnerabilities we might have
-missed.
-They publish papers that advance the entire field, and we incorporate their findings back into our codebase.
-This virtuous cycle makes our tools stronger than any closed-source alternative could be.
-
-We see open source as a strategic necessity.
-It builds user trust in an environment of surveillance and self-censorship.
-It multiplies our impact through decentralised adaptation.
-It harnesses global expertise for continuous improvement.
-It enforces genuine security that withstands scrutiny.
-And it ensures our mission endures, regardless of what happens to our organisation.
-
-The code we write today may outlast us. That's by design.
-
-[^1]: Kerckhoff described a number of design rules for military ciphers in 1883, and there is another principle that we
-also strongly agree with (translated from
-[the original French text](https://petitcolas.net/kerckhoffs/crypto_militaire_1.pdf)): "given the circumstances in which
-it is to be used, the system must be easy to use and should not be stressful to use or require its users to know and
-comply with a long list of rules".