I get it. That would be nice. But from the product manager's perspective, I don't think it's generally workable.
The problem with publishing whatever they have lying round is is that a) even if you won't, many people will complain that it's a poorly documented, slapdash protocol, b) it's now a public protocol that they're going to have to support, and c) it sets a precedent, so that people will expect future product to have public documentation and support. It also builds a constituency that will noisily push for niche features that may not be economical.
Letting people reverse engineer and dealing with occasional document leaks don't add the same risks. Indeed, it's probably cost-optimal: the hackers still get what they want, but the company takes on no new obligations and makes it very clear that the hackers are on their own.
The problem with publishing whatever they have lying round is is that a) even if you won't, many people will complain that it's a poorly documented, slapdash protocol, b) it's now a public protocol that they're going to have to support, and c) it sets a precedent, so that people will expect future product to have public documentation and support. It also builds a constituency that will noisily push for niche features that may not be economical.
Letting people reverse engineer and dealing with occasional document leaks don't add the same risks. Indeed, it's probably cost-optimal: the hackers still get what they want, but the company takes on no new obligations and makes it very clear that the hackers are on their own.