Yes, but they are not open source.

But it is *not* open source, which, while it is entirely the author's decision, does cause problems for certain people, and so it is unhelpful to muddy the waters with vague comments that could easily be misunderstood.

To quote the OSI definition: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" read on...

<TROLL>

The sources are open. It's open source. Redefining the meaning of something well-understood to whatever your religion preaches is the kind of thing only a 'free software' GPL zealot would do.

</TROLL>

I wholeheartedly agree.

I find it abusive and absurd that OSI tries to redefine the meaning of a concept to suit it's own interests. And even more absurd are the followers that blindly accept that as correct.

Eric Raymond invented the term open source and founded the OSI. I think their definition should be respected and used properly.
This is not a matter of which development model or license is better rather than a question of defintion; no need to flame anybody about this.

dev0