To me, open source isn't a transaction (even one with "nothing owed" as it were), as much as a community. What I get from participating in open source is to be a part of that community. You just don't get the same interactions working on a closed-source, proprietary code, no matter how deep and rigorous your process is. Ironically, I have stronger bonds with some of my collaborators at other companies/institutions than I do in my own, and that's all thanks to open source.
The fact that some of these open source communities happen to have built world-class software that is used by FAANGs and Fortune 500 companies is cool and a testament to the power of this process. But it's also sort of tangential. And I think we're missing something when we reduce open source down to the licenses and code transfer, as if that's all it is.
Sure, but when there's a widely accepted definition and you aren't making efforts to clearly distinguish your usage of the term from the common usage, then you're just trying to take advantage of all of the linguist context and baggage associated with the common meaning while actually meaning something completely different.
In other words, you want the goodwill that comes from being open source without any of the responsibility and obligation.