[segfaultbuserr]

The original wording was "It's open source, but it's not free". It can be understood as "It's open source software, but the copies are sold for a fee" if you stick with the standard terms, and yes, it's pretty common, but the actual meaning here was "the source is available, but not under a FOSS license", and it's also not unusual (for example, license with commercial restrictions).

Even your comment is ambiguous. I'm not really sure whether you've understood the context (and I'm not sure I've understood you, either) due to the ambiguity. This is exactly why I said the phase "open source" is a misuse and it's important to stick with the standard terms.