Clicking through to the other blog posts, it becomes apparent the the author plays fast and loose with the word "open", to their benefit. They "opened up" by pr

Clicking through to the other blog posts, it becomes apparent the the author plays fast and loose with the word "open", to their benefit. They "opened up" by providing gratis licenses to some of their software. They don't call it "open source", but the phrase "open source" is also scattered around the articles, so that "open" benefits by proximal association. They're free to license their software however they want; I don't use it so I really don't care. But it really rankles when someone extols the virtues of open source and waxes rhetoric about how open they are, and yet the software they offer is proprietary by default. They "double down on open", but the open source distribution is opt-in. I cannot help but feel that the articles are deliberately constructed to mislead. That's a serious accusation and I wish I could be more charitable in how I interpret them but the terminology is so consistent that it cannot be an accident -- gratis-but-proprietary is always "open", libre is never just "open" but always "open source". Technically correct isn't enough. No-one's explicitly staked "open" as being the same as "open source". But in the context of this conversation "open" is an obvious contraction of "open source" and to use the obvious contraction to mean something diametrically opposed is not reasonable or ok; especially when "source available" is widely understood. The same thing was attempted with the Commons License. The intent behind words is important. Persuasive oratory is fine but using those tactics to mislead does not engender trust, especially when the beneficiary is the one speaking and not the audience.