I think you're talking past another here. What is or isn't open source isn't the matter. OSI haven't prevented oligopoles from forming and locking people in to

I think you're talking past another here. What is or isn't open source isn't the matter. OSI haven't prevented oligopoles from forming and locking people in to "the cloud" by making software a commodity, nor have they prevented GPL'd software (Linux) to become giant spyware in the form of Android, nor have they prevented software to be weaponized for other forms of monopolization (eg. Webkit based on KHTML). All the while original developers don't see any financial benefit to sustain further development. I doubt those outcomes are what the developers had in mind, or are in fact in the public interest. You can pontificate all day about OSS ideals dogmatically; just don't think that makes the world a better place. There is very much a need to express acceptable licensing and nuance beyond the current copyleft/non-copyleft dichotomy. And as discussed elsewhere in the thread, AGPL might not be the answer since it hasn't stood in court (and there are good reasons it won't), and anyway doesn't express whether you care more about receiving patches/PRs, or licensing royalties for commercial/unrestricted use when that is obviously something that many want to see expressed.