> Your site appears to be open source There is no license anywhere which makes it closed source. The exception to this is that actual content published on the

> Your site appears to be open source There is no license anywhere which makes it closed source. The exception to this is that actual content published on the website (notice, this does not cover stuff in the github repository of the same name) is under the Creative Commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike License which is also not an open source license. In a separate repository there is the build tool for the website which is under an open source license (BSD). > He probably should have given credit, but I don't think it would be considered "stealing". It's against my licensing wishes. I generally don't like the idea of open sourcing visual styles precisely because I do not want other people to have websites that look the same. Visual styles are associated with their creators or companies behind it. For the same reason I license work under the three clause BSD license and not the MIT license. TL;DR: source code available != open source. //EDIT: the source code is on github because it makes it easy for people to see changes being made between revisions of articles if they want and it's an easy way for people to provide pull requests if I make a typo.