Well, "open source" in the sense that the source code isn't encoded/obfuscated. Have to be careful with that term IMHO, especially with the people I normally talk to, they think it means free
IPB's source is completely viewable/modifiable if you purchase a license; if you purchase one of the hosted community packages, most of the core files (but not all of them) are encoded.
No, it's not. I really have to correct you here. Open-source implies that anyone can edit the code and redistribute it. That is certainly not the case here. While the source is viewable, it's not an "open-source" project.
How are they different 'only to the developers'? Everyone needs to understand that visible source and open source are very different, no matter your perspective.
How are they different 'only to the developers'? Everyone needs to understand that visible source and open source are very different, no matter your perspective.
Indeed. Unfortunately a lot of people I've dealt with like to use "open source" to mean "visible source". I tend to correct them, but they don't seem to learn