By reading the comments I figured the biggest issue with "open source" is that it is misunderstood, and terms are abused in various directions which have differ

By reading the comments I figured the biggest issue with "open source" is that it is misunderstood, and terms are abused in various directions which have different meanings. Generally people use FOSS (Free Open Source Software) as the term to coin the meaning: "its open source, without compromises. It will never be closed, even for a while. AKA it's open source AND free as in freedom - yours - not the companies". Ends up in a BSD (pro for companies) vs GPL (pro for the users) fight usually. You'd think most would prefer GPL, but many of us actually work for companies and vote BSD (or similar) because it helps the hand that feed them. (I certainly vote GPL) The GPLv3 added some more depth to the understanding of FOSS - it's been criticized, also by M. Torvalds, who's getting most contributions from people working for said companies. The level of depth is simple: not only the software code must be available, possible to build and reproduce, but you must be able to do that on your device, that one which you own. It's all about power and control. They want to control you. Eg, have Facebook installed and potentially running even if you don't use it. That's control. That your warranty becomes void if you root the phone, that's for control too. They don't want you to be in control. That's a good part of what FOSS is about: ensure that you stay in control. And that's also what simple OSS (Open Source Software) does not provide. An I think that's important for our future, as software takes a big part of our lives.