The design philosophy says you should be able to repair your own tools, but this is closed source proprietary software.
Cute page, but does not walk the walk.
Cute page, but does not walk the walk.
Open source means free software, which is a license that allows unrestricted use of the source code. Shareware isn’t free (as in speech OR as in beer) software.
The definition of OSS is well defined, and isn’t my definition. This is why there is a term called “OSI-approved license”.
Further, the very operation of this code requires the user to modify it, as described in the usage instructions. You might say that this only gives permission to modify a particular subset of the provided code, to which I don't have an answer (other than that it's unspecified).
You might not be able to fork it and distribute your modified version to others. It's not free/libre. But you can read it and modify it for your own use. To me, that's plenty enough for a project like this. As far as proprietary code goes, this is as harmless as it can get - instead of criticizing it for not being open enough, it would be better to praise it for being this open, to encourage other authors (who would otherwise keep all the code as closed as possible) to follow this model instead.
Yes, FLOSS is good and great, but it's impossible to make all code like that; in reality, where we deal with DRM, app stores, and heaps of unrepairable, uninspectable, obfuscated, phone-home activated code all around, even a bit more openness helps.
Source available software is not open source, and attempts to redefine it as such are ridiculous. This apologism for proprietary software (hypocritical proprietary software, at that) doesn’t benefit anyone.