The common misconception you seem to be displaying is that the advantage of "open source" software is that it comes with the source code. This is exactly why R

The common misconception you seem to be displaying is that the advantage of "open source" software is that it comes with the source code. This is exactly why Richard Stallman objects to the term "open source" and prefers "free software": because the point of the thing is that you are legally free to modify and distribute it. Access to source code is just a prerequisite to be able to practically exercise those freedoms. (I'm making no commentary on whether he's right about this. Personally I tend to say "open source" more often, because that term has basically won out and I'm more likely to be understood.) By the way, years ago when Microsoft was apparently going to war against open source/free software, there was a bit from some Microsoft executive who said something like, "Open source is pointless. If our customers want to see our source code, they can just ask. But nobody does. Nobody cares about source code." He was exploiting people's misconceptions about what "open source" means. Indeed, nobody cares much about source code if they're not allowed to do anything with it. (Plus, disassembling a binary is a massive pain compared to just using the commented and labelled assembly file.)