Not really. At least not in normal software. The recipe is honestly only really interesting to researchers (like me). But for building and production stuff, you have everything you need.
> Just like my Windows install ISO from when they were giving windows licenses away from free.
I repeat, a free windows ISO doesn't have an Apache license attached. This is an inane comparison.
Yes, in normal software, the 'recipe' used to create the build artifacts is the source.
> The recipe is honestly only really interesting to researchers (like me). But for building and production stuff, you have everything you need.
A lot of excuses about why it's not useful to a lot of people and that you don't actually need it to use it in production is exactly the argument made for why not open sourcing is ok. That doesn't mean this is a source release, open or otherwise.
> I repeat, a free windows ISO doesn't have an Apache license attached. This is an inane comparison.
Even if the Windows binary iso was released with an Apache license, it wouldn't be open source since no actual source was released. That's the point of that line of argument.
I expect that if you call a release "open source", it's, you know, source. That their engineers used to build the release.
> The "recipe" is missing, yes, but this is very different from what you're saying.
The "recipe" is what we generally call source.
> So if there's miscommunication then let's communicate better instead of getting upset at one another.
Who's getting upset here? I'm simply calling for not diluting a term. A free, permissive, binary release is great. It's just not open source.
> Because 14G of a bunch of algorithmically constructed numbers and a few text tiles is definitely all you need to use, edit, and/or modify the work.
Just like my Windows install ISO from when they were giving windows licenses away from free.