Finding that it's not open source when you expect it to be (almost everything on github is open source).
If you find something is worse then you expect it to be you get disappointed.
Would it be better if you could read the sources? How do you know you could understand it? How do you know you could get it even to compile?
Sure, the binary is public, but that does not imply that the author has the codebase in any shape that would be legible or maintainable by anyone but him.
Sometimes projects grow so complex that only the original author can understand it. And there are lot of examples of projects that grew too complex even for their maintainers to understand.
What I'm getting at is this: making a code public does not make it usable, and cleaning up a research/hobby codebase so it's legible can be quite an effort, and not always possible.
Hence I find it odd to yearn for something you have no idea if it's worth yearning for. Unless one is an afficionado of masochism there are usually much more rewarding things to do than deobfuscate code someone else wrote.
Most open source codebasesfor things that don't suck aren't trash (and if they are that would be a disappointment).
Also I'm disappointment freeware things still exist.
