You have it backwards: if it's open source, then you can see the code. This remains true even in cases people are being sloppy with the term. Open source is wh

You have it backwards: if it's open source, then you can see the code. This remains true even in cases people are being sloppy with the term. Open source is whatever follows the open source definition. No more, no less. What you are talking about is source available. This is the only designation that is not confusing and that is uncontroversial. I haven't seen any half-serious project use "open source" that does not actually use an OSI-approved license. But I agree with the parent commenter. Do check out what is the actual license in any case, and feel free to avoid the term open source altogether if you think it confuses people. As this HN thread seems to show, the term does seem to confuse people indeed. You can use free software, or even "libre" if you find free software confusing. Or FLOSS.