GitLab, as an example, has been clear about having an "open core" business model[1] I appreciate that level of transparency. It gives me confidence that they understand their market and customers.

Naming matters. If a company can't or won't use the agreed-upon-by-the-software-development-community terminology on how the project is operated, it's souring to me. I also wonder if they (the company) understand what Open Source "is," specifically the responsibility that inherently comes with having an Open Source development/product model. In that circumstance, it feels like they have come to understand Open Source in the same vein that society once understood phrenology[2].

[1] https://about.gitlab.com/company/stewardship/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology