Simply making the source available does not make it open source. Open source has a specific definition; to continue to use it in the manner that your project does is disingenuous.
Sorry, I meant that that particular nib file (an AppKit UI asset) was not licensed for reuse; the rest of the code is, or will be. The nib is not included in the repo; I mention it in the description to explain why the project is missing a file, and also to ensure that people don't clone my app outright and sell it. (Not that anybody would want to do this with a small project like this, but I hope to follow this pattern with my later, bigger commercial projects.) I'm going to add a real LICENSE file in the next commit, probably new BSD, and I've edited the description to clarify this. That would still be under the purview of "open source", right?
None of it is open source. From your repo:
> not licensed for reuse
Simply making the source available does not make it open source. Open source has a specific definition; to continue to use it in the manner that your project does is disingenuous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source
This is a wonderful project though. Thanks for sharing!