I don't understand this. People are offering consultation as a fake form of open? People are pretending to be open as way to get consultation from others for free?

This Working section feels connected to the Open as an Adjective section above. Maybe bring them together?

I like this exploration of open in the different roles it plays, but I wonder about the order. Starting out with open as a verb and open access may not be the best starting place for someone new to the conversation. Perhaps the best start would be an exploration of what might be more fundamental meanings such as libre/gratis generally (as they are not specific to open access) and open as in speech/beer/puppies.

I can't suggest on the content of the video, so I'll put my observations here:

1) I'm not in love with the original "truth" of OSS, that it can be copied "for free". The word "free" in English most often means "without cost" and I'm not sure this is the most common, basic truth about OSS. While it's true OSS can be copied without cost (not counting the costs of the tools & infrastructure necessary to access OSS and make a copy), the larger truth is that OSS can be copied without restriction, which includes without the restriction of cost, but also includes the absence of other restrictions.. Maybe the word "freely" would work better here.

2) The metaphor of the cookie recipe seems pretty culturally specific. I wonder if a different metaphor might be more explanatory to a greater number of people?

3) If I were going to add something (knowing that less is more), I would add a short bit about what happens with forks in the future. Do they ever engage with the code they forked from again? Do they become "recipes" in their own right that might generate other patches/forks? etc