"Open source" has an established meaning. Even if the poster in question was using the term facetiously, I feel it must be corrected since there is legitimately

"Open source" has an established meaning. Even if the poster in question was using the term facetiously, I feel it must be corrected since there is legitimately a large body of misconception surrounding the mechanics of free software and open source, and such humor may fuel it further. Moreover, it reflects a critical flaw in the open source dogma as compared to free software. Open source puts source code at the forefront, which is fallacious. The key elements are the ability to run unfettered, study, modify and redistribute identical or modified versions. The source code is a necessary precondition for properly exercising those freedoms, but not a central focus in any real sense. It is easy to misinterpret "open source" as being about publicly viewable source code, and many companies have exploited this to their advantage presently or in the past (GitHub with Atom, Epic Games with UE4, etc.)