> All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form I think that, in practice, there are very few people who have been

> All "open source" really means is that the source code is available in some way/shape/form I think that, in practice, there are very few people who have been around the block a few times, and still see things that way. As a concrete example, consider the Microsoft Shared Source Initiative. That particular (arguable) boodoggle is the closest I can think of to a real test of whether there's a broad consensus on what "open source" really means. My impression is that most everyone who's looked into it agrees that a couple of the SSI family of licenses are "open source", and the rest are not, and that they generally agree on exactly which ones are and are not.