You are avoiding the "fly in the ointment" that open source has always meant freedom to run it how, where, and for the purposes the user wants, from before the

You are avoiding the "fly in the ointment" that open source has always meant freedom to run it how, where, and for the purposes the user wants, from before the OSI even existed, and your and many other people's use is in fact not only an attempt to change the historical meaning, but a change that is motivated by the business interests of those who would like to profit off of selling software licenses while still calling that software "open source". But sure, you are part of a movement to change the definition of open source to suit certain business interests in opposition to the original principles of freedom that motivated the concept of open source. I acknowledge that movement exists, and that you all are attempting to change the meaning of open source. People have tried to change the meaning of open source to suit their business interests since it began, but there is a new wave of invigorated effort to put holes in the meaning of open source to serve certain business interests. I don't think you have succeeded yet, and I hope you do not, and I'll keep pointing it out. If anyone can call anything they want open source, of course various business interests will, since it is viewed as an attractive label.