Let's stop moving the goalposts. Open source has a specific definition, and "they merge whatever code I want them to" isn't part of it. Just fork the client, compile it, and run it yourself.

▲

Lammy 3 hours ago | parent [-]

“Just” lmfao

Versus any mildly-technical user being able to stumble into the option and discover they're being spied on in the first place.

▲

lijok 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You control what software you install

▲

drcongo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Open source = I should be able to fork it, change it, and use it

Open source = The maintainers should build exactly what I hysterically scream at them

If I had to choose one definition of open source from these two options, it's going to option 1 I'm afraid.

▲

Lammy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Once again confusing Open Source with Free Software.

	▲	bigstrat2003 17 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Neither "open source" nor "free software" has ever meant that the developers must accept contributions from third parties.
	▲	lokar 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It seems to have a BSD license, what more are you looking for?
	▲	ninkendo an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Literally nothing to do with that distinction.