We're in full agreement here. It's dishonest to describe software as open source when it is not operational without key components that the developer intentiona

We're in full agreement here. It's dishonest to describe software as open source when it is not operational without key components that the developer intentionally made closed source. I would be fine with them saying that the software is "partially open source" and explaining up front exactly which parts of the software are open and which are closed. As a whole, if a piece of software is non-functional without a proprietary component, then it is not open source.