Yep! As I am now in my 9th year living and breathing LoRa and later LoRaWAN, and in the early days - before the emergence of even LoRa MAC in C from the Semtech/IBM collaboration (LMIC as known to many forumites) and later what we have done to consolidate and standardise around LoRaWAN under the LoRa-Alliance, I saw a great many clients, device makes, and colleagues develop proprietary LoRa implementations. Many of which have been ‘open sourced’, and which applicable to a range of device deployments some simple 2 device link P2P through point to multi-point to star and star of stars and even meshed implementations. If I may refer to all these (whether closed or OSS/FOSS) as ‘proprietary’ here simply to discriminate from LoRaWAN standardised implementations then with respect I would consider your statement of
To be very misleading and in this context even mischievous!
Conversely what TinyLoRa is can be thought of as YALPI* that just happens to have made use of LoRaWAN uplink capabilities in part.
A very clever and elegant (within its resource and capability constraints) implementation which I would applaud, but none the less one that should not be claimed or associated as being LoRaWAN capable or compliant. (As previously stated I suspect the L-A would take a dim view of any such claim or assertion).
*Yet Another LoRa Proprietary Implementation.