"Not Open Source" is the wrong term. It's an extreme example of a cathedral project. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar http://en.wi

"Not Open Source" is the wrong term. It's an extreme example of a cathedral project. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar . Slightly off-topic, but Android is another good example of a project where the LICENSE is open, but the ethos behind the project are not. The source code releases are licensed under the Apache License, but they're aimed at device manufacturers. Not at users. Not at developers. Not at ROM makers. Google doesn't care about your stinkin' custom ROM. How many people outside of Google do you know who have contributed a (non-security) patch upstream to Android? Can you clone the Android source from a public VCS to see what is being worked on in the next, yet unannounced release? Where was the Honeycomb source code before Ice Cream Sandwich got released? If someone decided to fork Android, what kind of changes could they make and still remain compatible with apps designed for Google's version of Android? APIs and compatibility definition documents serve as Google's insurance against forking. Someone ought to invent a pejorative term for this kind of projects. It may be an open source project. But does it represent the same collaborative ethos as the Linux Kernel, Mozilla or GNU? No. This isn't about free software vs open source. This is about open source serving a purely commercial interest (having the Google ecosystem on as many third-party devices as possible) vs innovation and collaboration. Any respectable person calling themselves a hacker would not call these "shut-in" projects truly open.