If the source is available to anyone, it's open source. That is independent of the licensing model. Saying "That's not real open source" is just gatekeeping. Th

If the source is available to anyone, it's open source. That is independent of the licensing model. Saying "That's not real open source" is just gatekeeping. There are different licenses, and when you insert the word "freedom", then you can start talking about how free said OSS is. It would be much more acceptable to say "If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real _free_ open source", but even then, if their license is permissive, it still could be considered free. Free as in freedom: You're free to do whatever you want with the code Free as in beer: The product does not cost money Whether or not they accept patches is up to the maintainer, and does not affect the freedom or open source nature of the software