It means that you only have access to the compiled binaries of the program (the files on your system) and not to the source code.
Which means that you cannot see why and how the program functions the way it does. You can try and reverse engineer it or decompile it, but it will be different from the original code.
As you stated, you can’t fork it either because you don’t have access to the original source control.
In addition to the other listed reasons, going open source is an extra step.
The code has to be compiled to run on your system (if it’s written in a non-interpreted language, which a huge portion of software is).
You can’t just run the source code on your computer. And getting your customer’s computer to compile the source code itself would require a massive amount of overhead.
So, to distribute your software, you’re always almost always going to distribute an already compiled version, and you’d have to choose to give the customer the uncompiled version as just a separate thing on the side. And there’s no real reason to do that for most companies.
It’s interesting to have closed source for some use cases, (sensitive or top secrets programs for instance) but open source should definitely be the default rather than the exception in my opinion.
It means that you only have access to the compiled binaries of the program (the files on your system) and not to the source code.
Which means that you cannot see why and how the program functions the way it does. You can try and reverse engineer it or decompile it, but it will be different from the original code. As you stated, you can’t fork it either because you don’t have access to the original source control.
Idk why but this close source stuff feels shady thanks for answering my question
That’s how most companies operate.
In addition to the other listed reasons, going open source is an extra step.
The code has to be compiled to run on your system (if it’s written in a non-interpreted language, which a huge portion of software is).
You can’t just run the source code on your computer. And getting your customer’s computer to compile the source code itself would require a massive amount of overhead.
So, to distribute your software, you’re always almost always going to distribute an already compiled version, and you’d have to choose to give the customer the uncompiled version as just a separate thing on the side. And there’s no real reason to do that for most companies.
It’s interesting to have closed source for some use cases, (sensitive or top secrets programs for instance) but open source should definitely be the default rather than the exception in my opinion.