[mejutoco]

> Where did I exaggerate or dogmatize anything?

The problem is you define open source as giving away software, and any money making aspect as "not open source". That is the exaggeration.

If one releases some software as open source and charges for support they are living of open source (my pov), not doing some open source + something else on the side (your pov). I disagree with your definition of open source.

Imagine I create my own illustrations and make them available for free (with some conditions GPL, or even almost without conditions MIT) and print tshirts with the illustrations, and sell them for money. Would it be fair to say I live of being an illustrator? or would you argue I am not living of my illustrations, that I am merely giving them away and really selling tshirts is the business?