So if development happens privately, and if they release the source with makefiles (or whatever they use), it is still open source yes?
Because it is exactly what is going on.
Because it is exactly what is going on.
Taking the original claim at face value, viz "No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release" (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43778333>), then no, the process isn't Open Source.
The argument then becomes not one of definition (law) but of the facts of the case. Again: I cannot make a determination here, but your haranging wordofx appears misdirected and weakens your case. That's not saying you're not correct, but you're coming across poorly and unpersuasively.
Do you think Google is compiling the OS for these folks, and releasing to them?
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43788459>
You're continuing to argue fact as if you're arguing law, which again, greatly weakens your overall argument, in addition to being needlessly confrontational and aggressive.