Having to define "open source" with that addendum illustrates the issue quite apropriately. "Open Source ≠ open source" is the essence of the problem. The sour

Having to define "open source" with that addendum illustrates the issue quite apropriately. "Open Source ≠ open source" is the essence of the problem. The source is open, yet it isn't open source. Here's an experiment you can run: hold an informal survey amongst a representative subset of programmers. "What does open source mean?". See what they say. I think I met one who knew what the OSI was. Ironically, "free software" is a similarly terrible term. It should be called "freedom software". I once e-mailed Stallman to ask about it, and he replied they couldn't use that term because it was already trademarked. Welp...