* Would such bytecode/binary be considered "source code"? If no, then bye bye Open Source Definition (OSD). Distributing such thing would not be considered open source.
* If it is considered "source code", then is it considered "obfuscated" source code? If yes, then bye bye OSD. Distributing such thing would not be considered open source.
* If it is not considered "obfuscated" source code, then what's the difference compared to, say, JVM bytecode? Is it only that an IDE exists that can modify such bytecode in a fancy way?
* In that case, if such an IDE is created that modifies JVM bytecode directly, and a program is created using that IDE modifying the JVM bytecode[1] directly, and such "source code" is distributed, the would that bytecode be open source? Since, after all, it's "the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program" (and therefore not obfuscated).
[1]: Or maybe some superset that is mostly JVM bytecode but it has some opcodes for higher level niceties.
* Would such bytecode/binary be considered "source code"? If no, then bye bye Open Source Definition (OSD). Distributing such thing would not be considered open source.
* If it is considered "source code", then is it considered "obfuscated" source code? If yes, then bye bye OSD. Distributing such thing would not be considered open source.
* If it is not considered "obfuscated" source code, then what's the difference compared to, say, JVM bytecode? Is it only that an IDE exists that can modify such bytecode in a fancy way?
* In that case, if such an IDE is created that modifies JVM bytecode directly, and a program is created using that IDE modifying the JVM bytecode[1] directly, and such "source code" is distributed, the would that bytecode be open source? Since, after all, it's "the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program" (and therefore not obfuscated).
[1]: Or maybe some superset that is mostly JVM bytecode but it has some opcodes for higher level niceties.