It is a pretty big distinction with different end results in practice. Look at Android, you can use the source in a "right to repair" manner but Google doesn't take patches so you can't give back even if you wanted to.
The same goes for Apple and Google's OSS browser. The source is there, but there is more or less no way to give back, and they certainly don't.
> Look at Android, you can use the source in a "right to repair" manner but Google doesn't take patches so you can't give back even if you wanted to.
Well, license obliging the original author to take patches back would be weird one.
But Google could suck in any change to their own and make it better.
> The same goes for Apple and Google's OSS browser. The source is there, but there is more or less no way to give back, and they certainly don't.
That's a different problem that's a bit orthogonal to licensing and has more to do with project leadership. Like, you don't even need to have OSS license to allow users to contribute to project.
The same goes for Apple and Google's OSS browser. The source is there, but there is more or less no way to give back, and they certainly don't.