Google can close and shutter youtube, Microsoft cannot. Therefore, by your definition, there is no way for youtube to ever be open unless Google commits to irrevocably fund youtube forever and ever. Alternatively, they could give Microsoft the option to close YouTube at any point in time for any reason, just like Google can.
?!?!?
ergo, your definition of openness makes no sense.
Don't be willfully dense.
I think a bigger problem here is why people think YouTube or Google are "open" to begin with. There are some areas in Google businesses that being more open than the alternatives (note the emphasis on more, sometimes they are just "open" in comparison with Microsoft and Apple policies) serves them well, thats why the do it, but it's not a dogma inside the company and will never be.
IF you are at equal footing with everyone else, THEN you are "open". But the other way around does not follow.
e.g. Mozilla (or Digia, or SourceFire, or thousand others -- take your pick) can relicense their open source software as closed source, and put out binaries for future versions without releasing the source. Others using the same source code base cannot. That does not make that source code any less open.
2. The property of being 'open source' applies to specific copies of software. All that 'closed' stuff you were talking about is applied to non-public copies so it has no relevance to the discussion of the open source copies.
