"Open source doesn't mean it's free" is typically used to refer to implementation and support costs compared to commercial solutions, not to licensing shenanigans within self-styled open source projects.
Parent’s point is a good one: the specific terms of OSI’s definition of open source does hinge on licensing. Furthermore, “open source” is not mutually exclusive with “commercial” software like you imply. The US government specifically refers to OSI-style open source software as “commercial” precisely because of the licensing that comes with it. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101
Comments
"Open source doesn't mean it's free" is typically used to refer to implementation and support costs compared to commercial solutions, not to licensing shenanigans within self-styled open source projects.
Parent’s point is a good one: the specific terms of OSI’s definition of open source does hinge on licensing. Furthermore, “open source” is not mutually exclusive with “commercial” software like you imply. The US government specifically refers to OSI-style open source software as “commercial” precisely because of the licensing that comes with it. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101