If the source was just published without any open source license, I'd call that "public code" or "code released", not specifically "open source" which comes with a different understanding than just the code being released under any specific open source license.
So if the goal is user freedom, how would open source limit that? You have the right to modify the software and you have the right to re-distribute it, together or without your own changes. What "user freedom" is missing from this?
Why don't you look it up? Open Source was a reaction to the political implications of Free Software, that didn't float well with the private sector. The fault lines between the two are quite clear.
So if the goal is user freedom, how would open source limit that? You have the right to modify the software and you have the right to re-distribute it, together or without your own changes. What "user freedom" is missing from this?