It is just as open source. If the source is available, you can open it in an editor. There you go: open source. It's just not Open Source according to the OSI

It is just as open source. If the source is available, you can open it in an editor. There you go: open source. It's just not Open Source according to the OSI people who believe they own the term. They do not hold a trademark on the term. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-term-open-source-a-trademark https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-t... The term "open" has been used as a weasel words in the industry before OSI and "open source". Off the top of my head: "The Open Group", "Open Software Foundation", "X/Open", "Open Look", "OpenStep", "OpenGL", "OpenMax", "OpenType", ... It's best to use more specific terms like "BSD licensed", "MIT licensed" or "Copyleft". Or FOSS. "FOSS" is a thing because open source isn't necessarily free due to the conflation with source-available.