[freedomben]

I don't disagree, but it is perfectly acceptable per the MIT license, which is an OSI approved license. MIT doesn't require source distribution with the binary (which is why from the developer perspective, it's a more "permissive" license)

[clickety_clack]

The license describes what users are allowed to do with the source code, it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) define what a creator has to do to make the source code open.

[freedomben]

Then it sounds like you're philosophically opposed to copyleft license like GPL. That's ok, we can agree to (in my case vehemently) disagree, but your philosophy is inconsistent with the commonly accepted definition of "open source" such as OSI's OSD[1][2]

[1]: https://opensource.org/licenses [2]: https://opensource.org/osd

[clickety_clack]

I think you completely misunderstand me. I don’t have any opinion on GPL, but in the links you shared, even OSI considers the license to be separate from the definition of open source “Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition”. You can use a license that open source projects use (ie MIT), and still keep the source closed, or you can write one that puts obligations on you if you want. In fact, you can use or write pretty much any license you want if you own the copyright.