There’s needs to be a clearer distinction for degrees of open source I think… unless of course they already exist and I just don’t know them. I guess “source viewable” is one I hear often. But there also needs to be a “closed development, but open code” version I think. Like just “open code” or something maybe. I don’t know but I feel like the demands of open source projects are growing, and users expect it to be exactly a certain way, and the ecosystem is varied enough that it might be useful to have distinctions for these things. I don’t fault them for being closed development though. But I get why people wouldn’t like it being called “open source” but then finding out they don’t allow contributions or heavily control input from outside.

Replies (5)

To be fair, accepting contributions from outside folks requires a well-designed legal framework. Otherwise it's a legal mess. It could be that they just don't have it in place for folks outside the company.
TL;DR open source is a confusing term, free software is better. Free as in libre, not necessarily free as in gratis. There are four fundamental freedoms for software to be considered free.