> In reality, "open source is a broad software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent restrictions on the u

> In reality, "open source is a broad software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent restrictions on the use and modification of the code." Not to the general public, only to the users doesn't have to be generally available to the public, see recent RHEL PR debacle. It's not about the restrictions it's about what you are allowed to do with the code. > ... Which is the definition the majority of developers would say is open source. Can you prove your claim has anyone done demographics on this?