The source code is here https://github.com/getkirby

The source is there but it's not free nor open source. See the license. I don't know if they're allowed to put such licensed code on GitHub as a public repo.

And why should it be. Someone invested time and wants something in return.

If you want something for free there probably are other alternatives.

Sorry, but this idea of 'what costs money isn't a viable option' just puts me off more and more.

Esp. if the price level for something great is that reasonable.

I only said that it's not open source, and did not say anything against it and its being proprietary. And AFAIK github only allows public repos if they're open source, I mentioned that. Read the thread.

Yeah that was my question - I was under the impression putting code up on github carries an implied license with it.

Not to use the code, only to look at it. Per Github FAQ:

You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. This might not be what you intend.

Even if this is what you intend, if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, you have accepted the Terms of Service which do allow other GitHub users some rights. Specifically, you allow others to view and fork your repository.

https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/

And the TOS say:

We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

"The source is there but it's not free nor open source."

So the source is there....then surely it must be open source?

Not as the term is usually used, no.

Indeed, it can't even be distributed freely.