If anyone paying the right price to access a product, and no underlying technology, making it "open", isn't most of the world's technology open? Isn't Apple rea

If anyone paying the right price to access a product, and no underlying technology, making it "open", isn't most of the world's technology open? Isn't Apple really OpenApple? Isn't Oracle really OpenOracle? Apple probably puts out more open-source tech than OpenAI. Does the word mean much anymore, then? Is it nothing more than a sentiment then? Perhaps OpenAI should have renamed itself to "AI for all" or something when they adopted the capped-profit model. Perhaps they should've returned donor funds and turned fully for-profit too. Perhaps that was a genuine resolution and pivot, which every org should be able to allowed to do. Genuine question, I run a nonprofit whose name starts with "open". But we do explicitly bring closed source work to be more openly licensed, without necessarily making the technology open-source.