Both Wikipedia & Oxford appear for some reason to adopted what is at best a subjective understanding of the term “open source” — since no one in plain English w

Both Wikipedia & Oxford appear for some reason to adopted what is at best a subjective understanding of the term “open source” — since no one in plain English would ever think some person, place, or thing being “open” would mean free to take and use as desired. Plain English is important. People are lazy. People do not like non-obvious meanings. Regardless of intent, any one prompting idea that “open source” means anything other than “viewable source code” needs to reflect on the clarity of their communication and the reality they may be seen as an chest pounding elitist; which to me is not in the spirit of the idles the claim to believe.