It is fair criticism. We don't claim to be "open source" rather we are open and free as in you can see the code and host it yourself if you want. The primary restriction is that license does not allow building a managed service out of it.
BTW, we don't have any license key, so that part of the Elastic License wouldn't apply. It is there, because we wanted to use a known license that fits the bill instead of creating our own obscure license.
At top: "An open source cloud that can run anywhere."
Near bottom: "Open-source or managed for you"
Image at bottom: https://unicorn-cdn.b-cdn.net/0c2bf736-3f08-4b11-a500-57e4e7...
At least Openstack doesn't lie about its complexity.
> Truly sorry that we missed these instances of "open-source" references. We scrubbed the use of open-source in most places, but forgot about our home page, which might sound weird as the home page is... well... home page. The truth is that our web site is not our primary focus at the moment. Rather we are putting almost all our effort for building the product (You can watch all of it in GitHub)
1. did that intentionally, intending to trick people into thinking UbiCloud is FOSS
2. did it unintentionally, somehow missing the obvious connection that people are going to make
either way, its a bad look. this is a solved problem, you can use the correct term for the situation: