> Could this be used as precedent if you release software and claim that it's open-source, but don't provide full source or even any source at all? Probably not

> Could this be used as precedent if you release software and claim that it's open-source, but don't provide full source or even any source at all? Probably not IMHO. That would be unfortunate, because there are companies that claim their products are "open source" even though they clearly aren't. For example pritunl markets their product as open source on their website, but while the source code is available on github, it is licensed with a proprietary license that doesn't let you do basically anything with that source code.