No it doesn't. This is like someone saying, I love poor people and helping them but I love capitalism more because then I can charge those poor people in order for them to get help. Might as well just say what they really love which is money.
Thanks for understanding my point. They are just saying they “love open source” to ingratiate themselves to the reader but it’s a meaningless statement because who wouldn’t love free work? The entire article that follows comes off like a long-winded rationalization. They would be better off saying “we don’t open source our product because we don’t want to” I would respect that more and it would save me time.
I mean, it's valid, if you're consistent. I don't think it's the way anyone else uses the word, but that is one way to define it.
No, my point is that it’s a meaningless statement in this post and that it diminishes the apparent significance of the rest of the post.
Because whether or not they “love open source” has no bearing on rationally deciding whether or not they should release one of their products as open source.
The only function of that statement as far as I can tell is to ingratiate themselves to the reader, i.e. “we’re on your team!” That type of desperate signaling communicates a lack of confidence in their rationalization, which in turn makes it seem disingenuous.
From where I stand, they did contribute to opensource and they are opensourcing their other software, Mapperly. That looks like "bearing" to me.
How do you personally pay rent if you feel that not giving every single thing for free is wrong?