@lispi314 @Suiseiseki @p @scathach

> That being said, source availability is irrelevant to a program's nature as proprietary malware.

irrelevant goes too far: clearly it starts to behave more like free software at the point where you have access to the source code alone. if you can have access to the source code *and* a compiler that is allowed to compile(ie no gpl3/tivoization/drm restrictions) & execute it that's even better. If you have a source code, a compiler, and can share & run your changes even if it's "proprietary" it starts to look and behave like free software in every way but in some sense for which it is not (ie perhaps the license restricts it in law, if not in practice) . If the law permits you to do all of these things and the source permits you to do all of these things then you've got about as much freedom as you can get unless it's an ai-like system perhaps where there's some special edge cases worth considering etc

but even in the case where you have the source code, a compiler to run it and a system which will execute compiled code and the functional ability to share changes - even if it's not legal to do so your community will behave something like a free software community with most the benefits of social solidarity, if an underground one.