No, if words have meaning, "closed source" does not provide source. Closed source does not mean "not open source."

Well then, according to the meaning you are assigning these words, Windows must be open source.

Which, of course, is obviously false. Which means the words have different meaning than what you ascribe to them.

Source available means you can view the source code, by abiding to the terms the owner of the code sets.

Closed source means you can’t change or redistribute that source, regardless of whether you are allowed to view it.

Windows would be not open source and not closed source according to them. I think most people would call it closed source however.

It’s obviously a spectrum, but (some) people think of different things when they hear “closed source” vs. “source available”. Also, a company like Microsoft providing source to big customers doesn’t make their products source available, at least not in the commonly understood way. Source available usually means the source is freely available for reading. That obviously does not apply to Windows.

The windows source is not avalible to _me_, even if they show it to some people. It is useful to have a term for source available to everyone.

So where can I view windows 11 source code? Got a link?

Sure!

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/

Incorrect. Closed source means that you cannot modify or redistribute the sources.

> Closed source can (and does, see Windows) provide source to customers too.

This just means it's Source Available to certain customers - Closed Source to others.

I agree that universally available "timebomb open source" "Source Available" is different from "Closed Source", though.

It allows for certain risk planning, like: If HashiCorp goes away, we will be able to host and patch (and keep using) product X for the foreseeable future - along with the ability to actually read the code and determine if it is something worth touching with a ten foot pole...