That guy really double-posted complaining about being ignored much too soon, but two years later, it might be safe to say that that was correct...

In any case, even if you get the source code, it's no use if it's under a nonfree license (or no license at all, which seems to be the case). My guess is that they're distorting the meaning of "open source" to mean "some source code is available to look at".

Reply via email to