Whether or not there's anything wrong with that is left up to the reader. :)
I really don't understand this meme about the web being 'open'. Much of the native desktop software I use is open source. Practically none of the web services I use are open source. There is not much chance of a 'GNU project' for the web (i.e. reimplementing an open google and twitter and facebook and so on). Open source web services of significance are few and far between and when it comes to controlling our data usually the best we get is a proprietary API that may or may not get shut down or changed tomorrow.
The web gave us RSS which was good[1] but since then it has been pretty much a non stop stream of proprietary APIs and platform lock-in. Even things built on RSS tend to be proprietary APIs rather than open standards: take Google Reader for example. Before it shut down it should have been trivial to pull your subscriptions out of it and point your clients at a new replacement rss-syncing server (like you can do with an email client). But it wasn't because there was no damn standard for that, just proprietary APIs as various people wanted to lock you into their cloud service. The standards that have emerged have been, of course, ones that generally involve lock-in to proprietary platforms, like OAuth.
[1] interestingly many of the new generation of web developers seem to dislike RSS.
Many sites still use JavaScript that way, but some use it for major programs that do large jobs. For instance, Google Docs downloads into your machine a JavaScript program which measures half a megabyte, in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long. The source code of a program is the preferred form for modifying it; the compacted code is not source code, and the real source code of this program is not available to the user.
So they're planning on releasing open source and charging for components on top.