It seems rms would agree with my definition - at least partly. From one of his GNU essays[1]:<p><pre><code>    Nearly all open source software is free software, but 
    there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses
    are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free
    licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because
    its license does not allow making a modified version
    and using it privately.
</code></pre>
He considers Open Watcom to be open source but nonfree, when it has a license that would not qualify as open source by your definition. I think you&#x27;re using the OSI definition? I tend to think of open source software more like rms does in his essay. If I can see and read the code, the source is open for me to peruse, then I consider it open source. Might be a total legal clusterf*ck to work with, but still, I have access to the source. I don&#x27;t think the issue is as clear cut as no license - all rights reserved[2].<p>I&#x27;m interested in what would be the name for software released on a GitHub public repo, but with all rights reserved?<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;open-source-misses-the-point.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;open-source-misses-the-point.h...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.com&#x2F;law&#x2F;13&#x2F;8&#x2F;github-poss-licensing" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.com&#x2F;law&#x2F;13&#x2F;8&#x2F;github-poss-licensing</a>