You are being blinded by your political agenda. This source code is readily available and costs nothing, thus it is both open and free. Much of the machinery here is relevant to me, so I can learn about the nature of the system through the code and adapt design lessons to completely unrelated applications. Without this free and open code no such thing would be possible.
I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.
Microsoft disagrees with you, and has since at least 2001, well before they cared about open source software at all. They use the terms "source-available" or "shared source". So do... all the other big enterprises. They don't want to confuse people; they want the restrictions on licensing to be clear.
What words would you like me to use for open source software that you're not going to trample over in 5 years when it becomes convenient for advertising your software?
> What words would you like me to use for open source software that you're not going to trample over in 5 years when it becomes convenient for advertising your software?
Option a) Makeup a non-generic not already in use term and trademark it.
Option b) Just say "licensed under <well_known_license>".
What you're required to do to get the exclusivity you're looking for is well established in the rules we are all required to play by known as "the law".
We're also required, when communicating with each other, to communicate in good faith and to create a shared understanding. There's no law about that, it's just pointless to try and communicate if we can't do that.
Otherwise, I can say something like this and expect you to understand me: Most people believe that an onlooker underhandedly ignores an omphalos, but they need to remember how non-chalantly the cigar about an espadrille laughs out loud. When a menagé à trois for a labyrinth rejoices, a starlet living with a clodhopper feels nagging remorse. An unsightly impresario is darling. When the surly menagé à trois starts reminiscing about lost glory, a curmudgeonly bubble ceases to exist.
Or I can redefine water to mean any clear liquid, including sulfuric acid, and sell that to you, and claim you should've understood what I meant when you die.
What you're trying to argue for is more akin to redefining "clear liquid" to mean water, and then trying to argue I'm deceiving you when I sell you a "clear liquid" and it happens to be sulfuric acid.
The words "open source" have a plain pre-existing meaning. "Water" does not.
Now to go ahead and make your argument for you - this use of the term open source might be like if I went ahead and sold you (having to force this a bit, since I've failed to find a good example of a noun) insurance against kicking the bucket, and then I tried to define it as insurance against literally kicking buckets. Possibly you can find a better example, but that's the best I could come up with and
- "the bucket" clearly distinguishes the term from being merely descriptive
- Selling insurance against kicking buckets makes no sense, unlike "open source software" where "open" means "anyone can look at it"
- Kicking the bucket is a phrase with a much longer history than OSI defined open source software.
"Grey" and "water" are both valid words that compose in English. And yet "grey water" is a specific thing. If you showed up and started shouting, "But it's water! And it's grey!" about some water that had been contaminated with fecal matter, then you'd rightfully be shut down.
I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.