There is a difference between open
software and open
standards. The two are orthogonal. Open software can use closed standards (though must usually reverse-engineer them); closed software can use open standards. See, e.g., LibreOffice support for .doc files; Microsoft's TCP/IP stack. Please make an attempt to engage with intellectual honesty, and stop intentionally conflating the two.
The issue at bar is whether Rust the language is proprietary, especially as compared to C. Something is proprietary within the standard meaning of the term if it "is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker." Merriam Webster, Online Edition, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary.
In this case, The Rust Foundation maintains and exercises exclusive legal rights over Rust that nobody exercises over C. If I make a C compiler with extensions, I can still call it C and I can still participate in C governance. C is an open standard. See https://www.open-std.org/. However, the same is not true for Rust, where governance happens entirely under the auspices of one vendor, who uses trademark law to ensure that no competitors can exist without its explicit approval. Specifically, any Rust variants other than those required for porting require explicit written permission. See https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-me.... Furthermore, even if I accepted my impotence in the governance process and even if I resolved to call my Rust variant something else (FeO?), competition in the market would still be chilled by The Rust Foundation's refusal to commit to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing (something that is required as part of the ISO standardization process). If a competitor ever did arise, patenting the borrow checker mechanism would be all it would take to completely crush them.
I am glad that rustc is open source. I am glad that The Rust Foundation is a non-profit. I accept on faith that they want to do the right thing. However, they have deliberately created a monoculture that they enforce through IP law. Rust is proprietary, i.e., it is "something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker." There are no open standards, there is no FRAND licensing obligation, there is no allowance for any Rust variants other than those explicitly permitted by the primary vendor of Rust compilers.
You brought up Python before, which is appropriate: Python explicitly is a "benevolent dictator for life" language. The difference with Rust is that the dictator is a legal personhood instead of a single living, breathing person. But dictatorships, even benevolent and well-intentioned ones, are ill-suited to the requirements of stability and predictability that are so vital to systems programming.
Imagine, God forbid, that The Rust Foundation goes defunct at some point in the next 100 years, and its IP bought up by the next generation's SCO or Novell or whatever, and they decide to patent the borrow checker and whatever other innovations are in Rust. Do you think that would be a bad thing?
Because it can only be bad if you agree that Rust is proprietary. If Rust were an open standard (including the borrow checker as part of the standardized compilation process and subject to mandatory FRAND licensing), then that outcome would be mitigated against.