People misunderstand what Open Source actually means. All it means is that you can see the source code used to compile the binary that you run on your machine. It does not imply any form of license or copyright or right to alter and distribute the work. Just because a software project is Open Source, it does not automatically follow that the programme is superior in its function, or fit for any particular purpose. All it means is that you can see exactly how it works if you understand the language it was written in.
Back Away from the Bitcoin Barbed Wire

you and wikipedia have very different views on open source:

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner. According to scientists who studied it, open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration.

Now, I guess you could argue that something is open source if you’re able to see the source code, but if that’s your definition, I suspect a wast majority of people would not recognize it as what open source is generally seen as. Do you have examples of open source software where all that is given is permission to eyeball the code? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely interested.

Like what you read? Give Henrik Andersson a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.