I have been arguing heavily in favor of releasing the source code for the version of Atlantis which has been out for ~1 month.
The repo should have all the history, going back to the last public derosuite commit; it would be highly suspicious for that not to be the case. But if it does not, then expect the questions and demands for sources to persist. And, skepticism may well persist regardless, and justifiably so, since unlike in blockchain, it is possible to rewrite history in git.
Let this serve as a lesson for other devs, about closing sources, even for awhile; open source in the crypto space is not about free software, it is about trust; you can trust the code, and/or you can trust the dev, but without fully open code, you are reduced to the latter. That is to say, the question is not about open source, but about open development.
You are wrong.
Open Source means you can check if anything suspicious is hidden and you can still propose modification but at the end your commits will be review by lead dev(s) in charge of project and of course they could be discarded.
When you submit modification to the Linux kernel, at the end is Linus Torvalds that give the approval to your proposition(s).
An other example : Quake 3 is a game product with Open Source like every product from ID Software, but that doesn't mean you could copy/fork the source even partially for your commercial project.
When you fork a Crypto project is always for commercial use even if you have intention to distribute your coins for free.
My math is accurate