Plus as a consumer I always thought the "spirit" of the open source agreement included avoiding vendor lock-in, in the first place. Now the argument is that the "spirit" all along was intended to require vendor lock-in, that consumers wanting the software hosted for them as a service should have only one option (Or authorized licencees of that one monopoly option), and that was always the "spirit" of open source?

I don't think so. I thought the "spirit" was the opposite of that, that open source would let consumers of software avoid vendor lock-in or monopoly control of the software.