Signal is not entitled to the value associated with being open source. Signal is merely pretending to be open, when in reality they are more community and user hostile than plenty of closed source or proprietary projects. Calling Signal open, is an insult to anyone actually building or supporting open source projects or protocols.
This is a false claim. All of Signal's software is released under open source licenses. The fact that you disagree with how they run their project and service is irrelevant to the fact that both the client and server are free software.
It's not a false claim. I stated an opinion. It's not even that controversial, it's a very common complaint about signal. The primary value in open source is it gives control over the code to the user. Signal releases their code, but actively prevents it's user from actually getting any benefit from it. A messenger that exists but you can't use to communicate with anyone has no value over a messenger that doesn't exist. A signal client that you can modify but then can't use to communicate with anyone else has the same issue. The protocol should be considered 'open source'. But for an encryption system, that's the bare minimum so it's not that impressive.
