It's increasingly hard to see how software freedom is present in cases when there's no realistic community access to source code. The barriers these days can come from complex codebases that no single mind can grasp or use of open-but-closed models.
As a consequence, OSI receives more complaints from community members about "open yet closed" than any other topic. Companies of all sizes who loudly tout their love for open source yet withhold source code from non-customers generate the most enquiries of this type. When approached, OSI contacts these companies on behalf of the community but the response is always that they are "within their rights" under the relevant open source licenses and can do what they please.
[...] Interestingly it's common that the companies involved obtained the source code they are monetising under an open source license, while they themselves own the copyrights to a tiny percentage of the code. They can be considered to have enclosed the commons, enjoying the full benefits of open source themselves — and celebrating it — but excluding others from collaboration on the same terms.
Source: Is Open Yet Closed Still OK?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:45PM
If you distribute the object code, you have to provide a reasonable way to get the open source and often also your stuff that links to it.
But if you use open source in house and do not distribute the program, then you don't.
The only case that would required you to distribute source to the general public would be if the general public actually had a legit copy of the object code.
The Linux kernel is probably the most widely distributed code, but even it is not used by the general public (IE everybody).
A license violation is when folks are not willing to provide source for their stuff that links.
Folks monetize this by creating eco systems which uses a mix of proprietary and open code, without linking.
The result is more and better supported open stuff operating under a balanced set of rules.
To say that the rules are unfair because they do not make everything open ignores the economics necessary to provide most open stuff in the first place.