But it's not free and open (as defined by e.g. open source definition or free software definition). It's restricted.

Quite understand the basic motivation ... and ... misusing terms is misleading.

This is tortured. The only difference I can see between priority 1 and preferred priority 2 seems to be an opportunity to sneak something in that adds cost (profit) under the claim that it's better for student learning. As if the top priority of OER or ZTC "fanatic" educators isn't student success.

I think it's easier to find common ground than the author suggests. And I suspect much of the ZTC and OER fanaticism may be coming from outside the ranks of educators, via political focus that ignores nuance.

Which uses OER inside its paywall.

I've become much more of an advocate of the NC addition tot he open license since I've started noticing how OER texts seem to wind up in walled-garden turnkey learning systems that charge for the homework and assessment modules.

If more OER content was licensed CC-BY-NC-SA, this might dissuade this type of "capture".

Is this really scaling, or is it productization?

Top Hat is not an OER company

I talk a little about openwrapping here: http://scottrobison.net/openeducation/a-not-so-direct-opened17-reflection-openwrapping/