[antisol]

  > you can’t complain the code isn’t open source

(unless, of course, the code isn't licensed under an OSI-approved license. Parent didn't actually specify which license the hypothetical not-windows-11 was being "open sourced" under, so we can't actually say for sure whether this hypothetical release is open source or not)

</pedantry>

[nailer]

Yes that’s correct. I’m imagining it’s the Apache license like the X code, which is indeed an open source license.

[YetAnotherNick]

> I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source.