I dislike this kind of semantic bickering. Yes, technically "open source" once meant only the distribution model of source availability. A lot of time passed since, and now "open source" means something else - a certain social phenomenon with its community, rules, culture and mores. Lamenting that people have grown to expect this is pointless.
Yes, some people can be over-entitled towards open source - and it's the right thing to push back against them and remind them they wants aren't the law of the universe. But it's also wrong that "open source" is just a licensing mechanism. It's a culture, and how people behave forms this culture. That doesn't create entitlement, but it creates certain expectations. No one is obliged to deliver on those expectations - especially if they are exaggerated - but I don't think it makes sense to deny they exist, and usually accounting for at least some of them leads to better results than ignoring them.
Yes, some people can be over-entitled towards open source - and it's the right thing to push back against them and remind them they wants aren't the law of the universe. But it's also wrong that "open source" is just a licensing mechanism. It's a culture, and how people behave forms this culture. That doesn't create entitlement, but it creates certain expectations. No one is obliged to deliver on those expectations - especially if they are exaggerated - but I don't think it makes sense to deny they exist, and usually accounting for at least some of them leads to better results than ignoring them.