[escape_goat]

I'm rejecting the idea that software distributed in any way that has an MIT license can be "de facto" closed source. I think that this is a conceptual misapplication of the term "de facto," which implies an argument of equivalence in a situation where that equivalence does not exist. The question is not whether or not we can access the source code; we can now access the source code. The question is what the license was. To say that the license was "de facto" closed source before the software was distributed without the repository controller's knowledge or intent is to make a legal argument about that license. That argument was false. It just just as false as the argument that an electrical fire in the wall of your house that you could not see occurred 'before' your house was on file.

[Brian_K_White]

Calling it defacto closed while it was physically inaccessible, is exactly not making any legal argument. That's the whole point of the term is to say "it's not really closed legally, it just has the same effect as being closed, because for some other reason besides it's license, no one can have it.

There are these books that explain the meanings of terms. We don't have to guess and have random individual ideas about what words mean, and then wonder why no one can communicate.