The project is not open source. The code it releases is open source. There's no contradiction - it's perfectly normal for a company to release their code under an open license; Chromium is another example of this. It's technically open, but for almost every practical purpose it could be closed and it would make no difference.

What you're trying to say is "I don't like the way it's run". Okay, fine. That doesn't make it "not open source".

I have projects where I don't accept patches. "It works for me" and I just don't feel like reviewing patches. Is that not "open source" in spite of being MIT licenced?

"I can do with the code what I want" is the entire and only point of Open Source and Free Software, something Stallman and many others have been pretty clear about over the years.

>"I can do with the code what I want" is the entire and only point of Open Source

This is not true at all, as evidenced by http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral.... You are mistaking Open Source for public domain.