> It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. That may be

> It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. That may be, but the terminology chosen by OSI is easily misunderstood, exacerbating this problem. When I see "open source", I think mostly of the source and can I see it, possibly whether I am allowed to alter it for myself. Like an "open book" (hey, I can freely annotate my own copy). Whether something is free to sell, or redistribute, or alter and redistribute always seemed like variations on what the easily inferred (even if incorrectly inferred) core meaning of open source. Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. If that's true, and common usage is at odds with OSI intention, where does that leave us? I think I could easily argue either side in that case.