[cycloptic]

Just a request, can you please not say "the source is open" without clarification? That seems to imply it's open source when it actually isn't, and the "different license" is actually a proprietary license. A more accurate way to say it would be "the source code is available to the public, but with some proprietary restrictions" or something like that. Otherwise you will just have to clarify later and you risk leading into nonsensical conversations like "well it's not open source but the source code is open."

[rpaik]

You're correct and apologies for the confusion. I didn't mean to imply that EE is open source. It is proprietary and source available. I was actually more concerned about the comment that EE is "off-limits" to contributors and wanted to set the record straight.

[m4rtink]

AFAIK many company employees can quite easily contribute to projects under an OSI approved license, while contributing to projects requiring CLA is generally much harder & requires clearing the given CLA with the legal department.

And I'm afraid contributing to a "source available" project that is not even open source will be even harder.