Plenty of us disagree with your flat “No” meaning it’s neither flat nor even no. Not because we redefined OSS, but because it is colloquially defined. As rega

Plenty of us disagree with your flat “No” meaning it’s neither flat nor even no. Not because we redefined OSS, but because it is colloquially defined. As regards FSF, I feel their point and mine is the terminology turned out not clear, as the pure definition you cite failed to stick. Language evolves, usage evolves, definitions are owned by the living and refuse to be gatekept. Things now “mean” the concepts they generally elicit rather than what they may have elicited in the past. In this case, the purist concept is tracked by the newer terminology; the ‘misperception’ is now disambiguated into its casual non-practioner use. By claiming both terms still label one concept, you are not among the ‘plenty of us’ recognizing convention evolved, and we are aware you disagree. But props for still trying to hold the line! Sorry, granted, there is a legal definition of ‘taking’. In this case, I didn’t intend to redefine ‘take’ as meaning not in possession. Instruction to “take a hammer and drive a nail” doesn’t mean one starts by robbing a store. Of course, the muddle over those rights is why the even further suggestion of ‘Libre’ over ‘Free’ over ‘Open’. Put another way, I strictly agree with you, but it’s futile since in the end casuals define things. It’s not your Open Source, it’s Nacho Libre! ... (Sorry. :-)