It meets the original definition of open source as in the source code is open and modifiable, you know the opposite of closed source.
If you mean the OSI definition of open source which defines how free the licence is, rather than how open the source code is then I suggest you check out the FSF they are the original OSI and advocate for free software and generally don't feel the need to change an existing definition and make it theirs.
If you mean the OSI definition of open source which defines how free the licence is, rather than how open the source code is then I suggest you check out the FSF they are the original OSI and advocate for free software and generally don't feel the need to change an existing definition and make it theirs.